Re: Using exec functions to simplify session code
Ivar Fredholm writes:
> At this point, Babel calls org-babel-execute:python, which decides, based on
> the 'session' header, whether or not to call python3 tmp_code.py or to feed
> each line in tmp_code.py into the session interpreter. What I am wondering is
> if we could replace the code for the latter option (in ob-comint.el) by just
> sending the interpreter the command 'exec(open("tmp_code.py").read())'.
ob-comint.el knows nothing about the interpreter. So, what you are
describing should be implemented by the corresponding ob-*.el backends.
They know all the details about the interpreter being used.
Also, some interpreters behave differently if they run commands
line-by-line vs. inside script file. In particular, the script commands
may be echoed before their output in some cases (e.g. bash scripts and
.bat files, AFAIR).
Best,
Ihor
Re: Using exec functions to simplify session code
Hi, Tim,
Let's say in your example that we are executing Python cells with the same
session. When you execute block 1, the routines in org-babel-execute-src-block
process the code into something that can be inserted into a file (say
'tmp_code.py') and be run from the command line with python3 tmp_code.py.
At this point, Babel calls org-babel-execute:python, which decides, based on
the 'session' header, whether or not to call python3 tmp_code.py or to feed
each line in tmp_code.py into the session interpreter. What I am wondering is
if we could replace the code for the latter option (in ob-comint.el) by just
sending the interpreter the command 'exec(open("tmp_code.py").read())'.
Now you can still run block 2 or 3, or block 2 twice, or neither. I think this
would simplify a lot of the comint code. All we would need to do is change how
we implement the 'exec(open...' code in other languages, for instance, I
believe in julia this could be done by an 'include'.
Best, Guacho
Sent with Proton Mail secure email.
--- Original Message ---
On Thursday, June 23rd, 2022 at 7:53 PM, Tim Cross
wrote:
> Ivar Fredholm freddyho...@protonmail.com writes:
>
> > I have been browsing the orgmode code and it feels like we have to do a lot
> > to implement sessions. At least for Python
> > or Julia, I am wondering if we could instantiate an interpreter, and send
> > the code as a single 'exec' or 'include'
> > command. Other languages like R and groovy also have facilities to run code
> > from a file. I believe this would reduce the
> > amount of code needing maintenance, as we would only need to manipulate the
> > string to pass to the interpreter based
> > on the language. If this has been considered before, could someone explain
> > why this approach was not used?
> > Best, Guacho
>
>
> I agree that supporting session can be complex, especially with some
> languages. The big limitation I can see with your suggestion (assuming I
> understand what your proposing) is that you may not necessarily want to
> execute all the blocks at once or only execute a block once.
>
> For example, I might have an org file with 4 code blocks which I want to
> all run in the same session. However, I might want to execute each block
> interactively, not run all four blocks sequentially all in one batch. I
> might execute block 1, then based on the result/output form that block,
> execute block 2 or 3, but maybe not both or perhaps I will execute block
> 2 twice before executing block 3 etc.
>
> If you adopt your approach, we would loose that flexibility. The session
> argument would essentially boil down to execute all code blocks in this
> file within the same batch rather than execute each one in a separate
> environment/instance. While this could be a valid interpretation of
> session, we would need to be sure it was one which all users found
> agreeable. It is possible, for stability and maintainability, a new
> definition of session would be acceptable, but it is a change with
> implications that would need to be managed carefully.
Re: Using exec functions to simplify session code
Ivar Fredholm writes: > I have been browsing the orgmode code and it feels like we have to do a lot > to implement sessions. At least for Python > or Julia, I am wondering if we could instantiate an interpreter, and send the > code as a single 'exec' or 'include' > command. Other languages like R and groovy also have facilities to run code > from a file. I believe this would reduce the > amount of code needing maintenance, as we would only need to manipulate the > string to pass to the interpreter based > on the language. If this has been considered before, could someone explain > why this approach was not used? > Best, Guacho > I agree that supporting session can be complex, especially with some languages. The big limitation I can see with your suggestion (assuming I understand what your proposing) is that you may not necessarily want to execute all the blocks at once or only execute a block once. For example, I might have an org file with 4 code blocks which I want to all run in the same session. However, I might want to execute each block interactively, not run all four blocks sequentially all in one batch. I might execute block 1, then based on the result/output form that block, execute block 2 or 3, but maybe not both or perhaps I will execute block 2 twice before executing block 3 etc. If you adopt your approach, we would loose that flexibility. The session argument would essentially boil down to execute all code blocks in this file within the same batch rather than execute each one in a separate environment/instance. While this could be a valid interpretation of session, we would need to be sure it was one which all users found agreeable. It is possible, for stability and maintainability, a new definition of session would be acceptable, but it is a change with implications that would need to be managed carefully.
Using exec functions to simplify session code
I have been browsing the orgmode code and it feels like we have to do a lot to implement sessions. At least for Python or Julia, I am wondering if we could instantiate an interpreter, and send the code as a single 'exec' or 'include' command. Other languages like R and groovy also have facilities to run code from a file. I believe this would reduce the amount of code needing maintenance, as we would only need to manipulate the string to pass to the interpreter based on the language. If this has been considered before, could someone explain why this approach was not used? Best, Guacho Sent with [Proton Mail](https://proton.me/) secure email.
