Re: [babel] Re: [Orgmode] org-babel: Meta-LaTeX-Python-Environment
On Oct 28, 2009, at 12:19 PM, Eric Schulte wrote: "Thomas S. Dye" writes: [...] Eric, I think Torsten has a clearer idea than I do about what kinds of programming structures might be appropriate here, but your suggestion looks to me like an elegant replacement for the file based technique I'm using to pass information into 'begin_src latex' blocks now. Expanding the noweb syntax in the way you propose looks extremely useful. I think it introduces an exciting range of possibilities into the workflow I'm developing with org-babel. So, yes, your proposal sounds appropriate to me. Tom This has now been implemented. To try it out grab the most recent version of Org-mode. Changes include - the ability to insert the *results* of source-code blocks through the use of noweb references in which the source-name is followed by ()s, and - the addition of the org-babel-latex.el file which should make it easier to add latex to the languages known to org-babel To try this out please run org-babel-tangle on the attached org-mode file. which should result in the attached .tex file Let me know if I should make any changes to this new setup. Thanks for the ideas. -- Eric Eric, Yes, the expanded noweb syntax works here as advertised. Wonderful. I look forward to making use of it and will take you up on your offer to make changes as new possibilities make themselves known. All the best, Tom Thomas S. Dye, Ph.D. T. S. Dye & Colleagues, Archaeologists, Inc. Phone: (808) 529-0866 Fax: (808) 529-0884 http://www.tsdye.com ___ Emacs-orgmode mailing list Remember: use `Reply All' to send replies to the list. Emacs-orgmode@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/emacs-orgmode
Re: [babel] Re: [Orgmode] org-babel: Meta-LaTeX-Python-Environment
"Thomas S. Dye" writes: [...] > Eric, > > I think Torsten has a clearer idea than I do about what kinds of > programming structures might be appropriate here, but your suggestion > looks to me like an elegant replacement for the file based technique > I'm using to pass information into 'begin_src latex' blocks now. > Expanding the noweb syntax in the way you propose looks extremely > useful. I think it introduces an exciting range of possibilities into > the workflow I'm developing with org-babel. So, yes, your proposal > sounds appropriate to me. > > Tom This has now been implemented. To try it out grab the most recent version of Org-mode. Changes include - the ability to insert the *results* of source-code blocks through the use of noweb references in which the source-name is followed by ()s, and - the addition of the org-babel-latex.el file which should make it easier to add latex to the languages known to org-babel To try this out please run org-babel-tangle on the attached org-mode file. noweb-eval.org Description: Binary data which should result in the attached .tex file somewhere.tex Description: TeX document Let me know if I should make any changes to this new setup. Thanks for the ideas. -- Eric ___ Emacs-orgmode mailing list Remember: use `Reply All' to send replies to the list. Emacs-orgmode@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/emacs-orgmode
Re: [babel] Re: [Orgmode] org-babel: Meta-LaTeX-Python-Environment
On Oct 28, 2009, at 7:15 AM, Eric Schulte wrote:
"Thomas S. Dye" writes:
On Oct 28, 2009, at 6:10 AM, Dan Davison wrote:
Am I right in thinking that one issue remaining in this thread is
that
we currently have no means of tangling the output of org-babel-
latex?
Thus the 'begin_src latex' blocks that we can tangle have
unevaluated
variables, and the resulting 'begin_latex' blocks have evaluated
variables but can't be tangled? (We could extend tangling to cover
such
blocks, or perhaps preferably use ':results code' to generate
begin_src
latex' blocks?)
Dan
Hi Dan,
I haven't found time to evaluate org-babel-latex, but, yes, the
example provided with the code raised a concern that the
'begin_latex'
blocks are divorced from the literate programming structure built up
by the named 'begin_src latex' blocks. Ideally, I think, the
begin_latex' blocks would replace <> references to their
source 'begin_src latex' blocks, or would employ some other mechanism
that doesn't break the literate programming structure I create.
I just started a new branch [1] in the org-mode/babel [2] repository
where we should be able to implement a solution without too much
trouble. If we expand the noweb syntax such that if a source-code
block
name has parenthesis "()" appended to the end of it's name, then the
block will be evaluated during noweb reference expansion and it's
results will be placed in the source-code block. That structure
should
even allow simple literal arguments to be passed to the referenced
block.
So for example what I'm proposing is that in the following case this
--8<---cut here---start->8---
#+srcname: noweb-example
#+begin_src python :var a=0
a+10
#+end_src
#+begin_src latex :tangle somewhere
\begin{itemize}
\item <>
\item <>
\item <>
\end{itemize}
#+end_src
--8<---cut here---end--->8---
would tangle to somewhere.tex as
--8<---cut here---start->8---
\begin{itemize}
\item a+10
\item 10
\item 18
\end{itemize}
--8<---cut here---end--->8---
Does that sound appropriate? -- Eric
Footnotes:
[1]
http://repo.or.cz/w/org-mode/babel.git?a=shortlog;h=refs/heads/noweb-evaluate
[2] http://repo.or.cz/w/org-mode/babel.git
Eric,
I think Torsten has a clearer idea than I do about what kinds of
programming structures might be appropriate here, but your suggestion
looks to me like an elegant replacement for the file based technique
I'm using to pass information into 'begin_src latex' blocks now.
Expanding the noweb syntax in the way you propose looks extremely
useful. I think it introduces an exciting range of possibilities into
the workflow I'm developing with org-babel. So, yes, your proposal
sounds appropriate to me.
Tom
___
Emacs-orgmode mailing list
Remember: use `Reply All' to send replies to the list.
Emacs-orgmode@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/emacs-orgmode
Re: [babel] Re: [Orgmode] org-babel: Meta-LaTeX-Python-Environment
"Thomas S. Dye" writes:
> On Oct 28, 2009, at 6:10 AM, Dan Davison wrote:
>> Am I right in thinking that one issue remaining in this thread is that
>> we currently have no means of tangling the output of org-babel-latex?
>> Thus the 'begin_src latex' blocks that we can tangle have unevaluated
>> variables, and the resulting 'begin_latex' blocks have evaluated
>> variables but can't be tangled? (We could extend tangling to cover
>> such
>> blocks, or perhaps preferably use ':results code' to generate
>> begin_src
>> latex' blocks?)
>>
>> Dan
>
> Hi Dan,
>
> I haven't found time to evaluate org-babel-latex, but, yes, the
> example provided with the code raised a concern that the 'begin_latex'
> blocks are divorced from the literate programming structure built up
> by the named 'begin_src latex' blocks. Ideally, I think, the
> begin_latex' blocks would replace <> references to their
> source 'begin_src latex' blocks, or would employ some other mechanism
> that doesn't break the literate programming structure I create.
>
I just started a new branch [1] in the org-mode/babel [2] repository
where we should be able to implement a solution without too much
trouble. If we expand the noweb syntax such that if a source-code block
name has parenthesis "()" appended to the end of it's name, then the
block will be evaluated during noweb reference expansion and it's
results will be placed in the source-code block. That structure should
even allow simple literal arguments to be passed to the referenced
block.
So for example what I'm proposing is that in the following case this
--8<---cut here---start->8---
#+srcname: noweb-example
#+begin_src python :var a=0
a+10
#+end_src
#+begin_src latex :tangle somewhere
\begin{itemize}
\item <>
\item <>
\item <>
\end{itemize}
#+end_src
--8<---cut here---end--->8---
would tangle to somewhere.tex as
--8<---cut here---start->8---
\begin{itemize}
\item a+10
\item 10
\item 18
\end{itemize}
--8<---cut here---end--->8---
Does that sound appropriate? -- Eric
Footnotes:
[1]
http://repo.or.cz/w/org-mode/babel.git?a=shortlog;h=refs/heads/noweb-evaluate
[2] http://repo.or.cz/w/org-mode/babel.git
___
Emacs-orgmode mailing list
Remember: use `Reply All' to send replies to the list.
Emacs-orgmode@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/emacs-orgmode
Re: [babel] Re: [Orgmode] org-babel: Meta-LaTeX-Python-Environment
Dan Davison writes: > Am I right in thinking that one issue remaining in this thread is that > we currently have no means of tangling the output of org-babel-latex? > Thus the 'begin_src latex' blocks that we can tangle have unevaluated > variables, and the resulting 'begin_latex' blocks have evaluated > variables but can't be tangled? (We could extend tangling to cover such > blocks, or perhaps preferably use ':results code' to generate 'begin_src > latex' blocks?) Sorry, I see. 'begin_latex' is inserted directly into latex export and omitted from other export targets. Still, it might sometimes be useful to use the tangling machinery in which case ':results code' is what is needed. Dan > > Dan > > > >> >>> >>> In response to the implicit question in your comment, perhaps there >>> isn't a need to embed LaTeX inside source blocks and the uses to which >>> I put them could be accomplished in org-mode without them. My >>> programming skills are pretty crude and I'm aware that I'm a long way >>> from understanding org-mode and its vast potential. With that caveat, >>> here is my $0.02. >>> >> >> I'm also very far from taking full advantage of Org-mode export >> >>> >>> First, practical reasons: >>> >>> 1) I'm comfortable writing LaTeX and am particular about the results; >>> it is hard for me to map the inverse transformation through the org- >>> mode LaTeX exporter to express in org the particular LaTeX result I'm >>> after. >>> >>> 2) Someone on the list (Carsten?) mentioned a couple of days ago that >>> it wasn't reasonable to expect the org LaTeX exporter to capture the >>> full complexity of LaTeX (I'm paraphrasing, but I think that was the >>> gist); I ran up against an example of this (or so I think) when trying >>> to configure export to beamer code, where beamer's use of columns >>> tripped me up. >>> >> >> I fully understand your point. I guess that given my personal paucity >> of latex knowledge and abilities the same need has never occurred to >> me. In my case the Org-mode exported generally knows more about latex >> than I do. >> >>> >>> Second, conceptual reasons: >>> >>> 1) I consider writing LaTeX to be programming (here I mean no >>> disrespect to real programmers) and appreciate being able to do >>> literate LaTeX programming; the LaTeX source blocks let me write my >>> beamer presentation a slide or two at a time, just as I want them, >>> along with an adjacent source block for my print document, just as i >>> want it, that covers the same conceptual space, while I use the >>> surrounding org entries to document why I am doing things a particular >>> way, etc. >>> >> >> I see, you are using the org-mode file "a level above" the direct >> export. Maybe another option here would be to tag headlines based on >> which export target they are included within, and then base your exports >> on the headline tags (using #+EXPORT_INCLUDE_TAGS:), although I agree >> this also seems like an appropriate place to use the tangle >> functionality. >> >>> >>> 2) I think this workflow, with an org-mode meta-document that >>> encapsulates the print document and presentation materials, along with >>> the SQL, R, and Python code used to create the datasets and analyze >>> them, takes org-babel a step closer to realizing its potential as a >>> tool for reproducible research. Here, I am thinking of an org >>> document that captures the ways in which a piece of research is one >>> logical path among many possibilities, implemented and expressed in >>> one particular way (or two, if you want to distinguish print from >>> presentation) among many possibilities. >>> >>> The LaTeX source blocks in org-babel give me an easy and natural way >>> to accomplish these things. In the short time I've used them, they've >>> yielded results that impress me. I'm confident they hold much more >>> potential than I've been able to tap. >>> >> >> I didn't mean to imply that because I didn't understand the need for >> direct inclusion of latex code there *wasn't* a need for direct >> inclusion of latex code :) Thanks for the explanation. >> >>> >>> It is a real pleasure leveraging your good work. >>> >> >> It is a pleasure to be able to participate in such a nice open-source >> community. -- Eric >> >>> >>> Tom >> >> >> ___ >> Emacs-orgmode mailing list >> Remember: use `Reply All' to send replies to the list. >> Emacs-orgmode@gnu.org >> http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/emacs-orgmode > > > ___ > Emacs-orgmode mailing list > Remember: use `Reply All' to send replies to the list. > Emacs-orgmode@gnu.org > http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/emacs-orgmode ___ Emacs-orgmode mailing list Remember: use `Reply All' to send replies to the list. Emacs-orgmode@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/emacs-orgmode
