Alan Schmitt <alan.schm...@polytechnique.org> writes: > Hi Eric, > > Eric Schulte writes: > >>> The suggestion: instead of appending '"org-babel-ocaml-eoe";;' to the >>> code, how simply put ';;' (which will make sure everything is flushed) >>> then detect the toplevel is done by seeing the string '# ' at the >>> beginning of the line? Would there be an issue with the fact that this >>> line does not have a newline? If so, an alternative suggestion would be >>> to use the longer ';; "org-babel-ocaml-eoe";;' which makes sure the >>> phrase in the input won't interact with the marker. >>> >> >> You can customize the `org-babel-ocaml-eoe-output' and >> `org-babel-ocaml-eoe-indicator' variables so that they match the above. >> If this proves generally useful then I'd be happy to admit this change >> to the core. > > I'll have a look at it (as soon as my European grant deadline as > passed).
Great. > The one thing I don't know about org-babel-comint-with-output is the > following: what does it do with the last line if it does not have a > carriage return? (After running a command, the toplevel outputs '# ' > with no carriage return. Will it be part of the returned string?) > This prompt should not be returned as ob-comint-w/output handles things like removing echo'd inputs, prompts etc... However, although I'm still writing OCaml fairly regularly I removed tuareg during a recent hard drive switch in favor of the default caml-mode, so I can't test this directly with an OCaml code block (another reason why I'm excited at the prospect of someone else's eyes on ob-caml). > >> I hope these pointers are useful. > > They definitely are. As ocaml is not only my language of choice but one > I have the chance of teaching, I'll clearly look into this. > > Thanks again, > > Alan > Cheers, -- Eric Schulte http://cs.unm.edu/~eschulte
