Sebastien Vauban
wxhgmqzgw...@spammotel.com writes:
The only case that pops up to my mind now, of such a use case where
overwriting could be needed (well, let's say useful) is for some pedagogical
document that one would write, where code is constructed from a simplistic
(and buggy) approach
Hi Eric and Neeum,
Eric Schulte wrote:
Overwriting is still not supported, but I don't know if that's all that
important (I don't have an immediate need for it). And noweb by default
did not have it either, so perhaps it's not needed for most tasks
This was my thinking.
(OTOH, you may want
Am 08.06.2011 17:20, schrieb Neeum Zawan:
[...]
Now the original noweb allows what I'm asking for. If you begin a source
block with a name of an existing block but append an = symbol, it
knows to append to that source block.
It would be great if org-mode could add that capability. Another
Eric Schulte schulte.e...@gmail.com writes:
How about the following solution, which is based on a new :noweb-ref
header argument.
When expanding ``noweb'' style references the bodies of all code block
with /either/ a block name matching the reference name /or/ a :noweb-ref
header argument
Neeum Zawan mailingli...@nawaz.org writes:
Eric Schulte schulte.e...@gmail.com writes:
How about the following solution, which is based on a new :noweb-ref
header argument.
When expanding ``noweb'' style references the bodies of all code block
with /either/ a block name matching the
Rather than feeling our way forward step by step it seems that simply
following the behavior of noweb would both
1. allow for easy transition between noweb and babel
2. benefit from the years of experience and design accumulated in the
noweb project
Does anyone on this list know the noweb
Hi Neeum,
You are correct, the current implementation only specially concatenates
blocks during tangling, *not* during noweb resolution.
It would be possible to also implement the concatenation behavior during
noweb expansion, however I'd prefer to first wait for a response to my
recent other
Eric Schulte schulte.e...@gmail.com writes:
It would be possible to also implement the concatenation behavior during
noweb expansion, however I'd prefer to first wait for a response to my
recent other email to this thread asking for a more clear explication of
existing noweb behavior.
The
Eric Schulte schulte.e...@gmail.com writes:
Does anyone on this list know the noweb system well enough to specify
its behavior in this regard, and to describe what functional changes
would be required to bring Babel into line with noweb behavior?
Far from knowing it well, but the basics are,
Eric Schulte schulte.e...@gmail.com writes:
Rather than feeling our way forward step by step it seems that simply
following the behavior of noweb would both
1. allow for easy transition between noweb and babel
2. benefit from the years of experience and design accumulated in the
noweb
Achim Gratz strom...@nexgo.de writes:
Eric Schulte schulte.e...@gmail.com writes:
Does anyone on this list know the noweb system well enough to specify
its behavior in this regard, and to describe what functional changes
would be required to bring Babel into line with noweb behavior?
Far
Neeum Zawan mailingli...@nawaz.org writes:
Eric Schulte schulte.e...@gmail.com writes:
It would be possible to also implement the concatenation behavior during
noweb expansion, however I'd prefer to first wait for a response to my
recent other email to this thread asking for a more clear
Eric Schulte schulte.e...@gmail.com writes:
Thanks for sharing your thoughts. How would you feel about moving away
from special source block names and moving towards implementing this
behavior with a header argument?
I'm not feeling strongly either way... I'm wanting to use Babel for some
Eric Schulte schulte.e...@gmail.com writes:
Could you try the attached example file? I first evaluated the
following elisp code to set the combination variable's value to append.
Your example works if there are no noweb references.
See the modified one where I have noweb references. Note
Hi Neeum,
Neeum Zawan mailingli...@nawaz.org writes:
Eric Schulte schulte.e...@gmail.com writes:
Hi Neeum,
Thanks for your feedback. Your point is well taken about the
flexibility of header arguments, and the ability of a header argument
based solution to overwrite blocks.
I would
Achim Gratz strom...@nexgo.de writes:
Eric Schulte schulte.e...@gmail.com writes:
I think append is just as clear as concatenate,
Fair enough, in my mind append needs an existing entity, but I guess
it could be an empty one.
and collate implies shuffling which is not happening.
Well, I
Eric Schulte schulte.e...@gmail.com writes:
I think append is just as clear as concatenate,
Fair enough, in my mind append needs an existing entity, but I guess
it could be an empty one.
and collate implies shuffling which is not happening.
Well, I was getting ahead of myself... I hope you
Hi Neeum,
Thanks for your feedback. Your point is well taken about the
flexibility of header arguments, and the ability of a header argument
based solution to overwrite blocks.
I would mention that variables such as the newly introduced
`org-babel-tangle-named-block-combination' may be easily
Eric Schulte schulte.e...@gmail.com writes:
Hi Neeum,
Thanks for your feedback. Your point is well taken about the
flexibility of header arguments, and the ability of a header argument
based solution to overwrite blocks.
I would mention that variables such as the newly introduced
I like the concision of the =original-name syntax used by noweb, but I
would lean towards the use of a :noweb-append type header argument as
suggested above because currently the names of blocks in Babel carry no
semantic content and I'd prefer to leave it this way.
I suppose it may also
Eric Schulte schulte.e...@gmail.com writes:
append the bodies of all blocks of the same name are appended
during tangling
Shouldn't this be called concat(enate) or collate? Or, since
several blocks with the same name seem a bit dubious, would it not be
cleaner to have an index part to
Achim Gratz strom...@nexgo.de writes:
Eric Schulte schulte.e...@gmail.com writes:
append the bodies of all blocks of the same name are appended
during tangling
Shouldn't this be called concat(enate) or collate?
I think append is just as clear as concatenate, and collate implies
Eric Schulte schulte.e...@gmail.com writes:
I like the concision of the =original-name syntax used by noweb, but I
would lean towards the use of a :noweb-append type header argument as
suggested above because currently the names of blocks in Babel carry no
semantic content and I'd prefer to
Achim Gratz strom...@nexgo.de writes:
Eric Schulte schulte.e...@gmail.com writes:
append the bodies of all blocks of the same name are appended
during tangling
several blocks with the same name seem a bit dubious, would it not be
cleaner to have an index part to the block name and a
On Wed, Jun 8, 2011 at 5:20 PM, Neeum Zawan mailingli...@nawaz.org wrote:
n this case, yes. In a real programming project, it could be a number
of them. For example, I may have a code block dedicated to
imports/includes which I want to be on the top of the file - and I may
have to append to
Hi Neeum,
Neeum Zawan wrote:
With noweb, one can continue a source block that one started
earlier. Can this not be done with Babel?
If not, I'm struggling a little with how to do LP using Babel...
Of course, this can be done here as well: simply reuse the same tangle
target (file), and
Sebastien Vauban
wxhgmqzgw...@spammotel.com writes:
Hi Neeum,
Neeum Zawan wrote:
With noweb, one can continue a source block that one started
earlier. Can this not be done with Babel?
If not, I'm struggling a little with how to do LP using Babel...
Of course, this can be done here as
The above is somewhat artificial, but in a proper programming project
something like this will occur frequently: A new feature will be added
at some later point and I'll want to update various blocks of code.
Currently the best method is that suggested previously/below of using
named
Eric Schulte schulte.e...@gmail.com writes:
Second solution: create one sole block that will be tangled, and which
contains your other blocks (using the ref syntax), in the order you
want.
I had thought of this, but I find it somewhat lacking. Consider my
example above. I could have
Hi,
With noweb, one can continue a source block that one started
earlier. Can this not be done with Babel?
If not, I'm struggling a little with how to do LP using Babel...
Thanks.
30 matches
Mail list logo
