Rainer M Krug <rai...@krugs.de> writes: > Bastien <b...@gnu.org> writes: > >> Hi Rainer, >> >> Rainer M Krug <r.m.k...@gmail.com> writes: >> >>> I'll look at it again tomorrow and let you know as I made some changes >>> since then. Do you prefer one patch to several? >> >> Up to Eric's taste -- but in general I think a series of patches >> is better, it allows you to isolate and fix conflicts more easily. >
I agree, multiple patches make future maintenance easier. >> I missed some previous discussion in this thread. Are these patches >> ready to be applied as is? >> > > > IMO, the patches hard coded behaviors that would better be customizable > and optional. > > Rainer and I had some back and forth about this -- see the thread. With respect to these points, I'm inclined to agree with Charles in the following. > All you have to do is add this: > > (defvar org-babel-R-assign-elisp-function 'org-babel-R-assign-elisp > "Name or definition of function to handle `:var name=value' > header args." > ) > > and change one line in org-babel-variable-assignments:R from > > (org-babel-R-assign-elisp to > > (funcall org-babel-R-assign-elisp-function > > and the user can provide her own elisp assignment function. > > This gives users who want special behavior like creating something > other than a data.frame the option of providing their own function. Would such a customization variable be difficult to add to your patches? If not would you mind submitting a version of the patches split into multiple commits with as much of the hard-coded R code as feasible placed into customizable variables along the lines of the `org-babel-R-assign-elisp-function' variable suggested by Charles. One lesson I've certainly learned from the Org-mode mailing list is that you can't anticipate all of the ways that your code will be used, so up-front customizability generally pays off. Thanks, Eric > > Thanks > > Rainer -- Eric Schulte https://cs.unm.edu/~eschulte PGP: 0x614CA05D
