one thing about org that i think has been making it complex, in
addition to number of features, is non-orthogonality.
On 7/13/21, Tim Cross wrote:
>
> Tom Gillespie writes:
>
> [snip]
>
>>
>> Once I wrap up the formal grammar for org, one of the next things I
>> plan to work on is a clear specif
Tom Gillespie writes:
[snip]
>
> Once I wrap up the formal grammar for org, one of the next things I
> plan to work on is a clear specification for org babel. This is
> critical because so many of the suggestions that come in deal with
> individuals' specific problems and thus fail to account
In implementing an extension you might consider doing it as a generalized
form of what I did with ob-racket (https://github.com/togakangaroo/ob-racket
).
I think it is best to rely on the import/require/include mechanism of the
language you're using. Pretty much all of them support adjacent files.
We have been receiving many new feature suggestions and requests
coming in for org babel. I think that Tim's suggestion is the right
one. Nearly all of these need to be implemented as an extension first
and tested independently. Further, even if this is done, it should be
clear that there is zero e
> On 9. Jul 2021, at 19:01, autofrettage wrote:
>
> Tim wrote:
>> This could just be me, but recently, I'm becoming very concerned
>> about the growth of additional features and options in org mode.
>
> Count me in. I have been mostly been hanging around in the shadows, but this
> is serious
Tim,
> On Jul 8, 2021, at 12:32 PM, Tim Cross wrote:
>
> My concern here is with the additional complexity. This is already a
> somewhat complex aspect of org mode and the behaviour you describe can
> effectively be done using noweb, although as you say, not as
> declarative in style.
This (an
Tim wrote:
> This could just be me, but recently, I'm becoming very concerned
> about the growth of additional features and options in org mode.
Count me in. I have been mostly been hanging around in the shadows, but this is
serious enough for me to wave a flag on the right side.
I would go as f
On 09/07/2021 02:32, Tim Cross wrote:
Marko Schuetz-Schmuck writes:
I would find it useful to have a more declarative way for specifying
sequence. I imagine e.g. using "#+REQUIRES:" and "#+PROVIDES:" to
capture dependency and then have the exporter compute a sequence
satisfying these. I would t
Marko Schuetz-Schmuck writes:
> I would find it useful to have a more declarative way for specifying
> sequence. I imagine e.g. using "#+REQUIRES:" and "#+PROVIDES:" to
> capture dependency and then have the exporter compute a sequence
> satisfying these.
I would say that declaring an explicit o
Marko Schuetz-Schmuck writes:
> [[PGP Signed Part:Undecided]]
> Dear All,
>
> AFAIU in the current support for literate programming I can establish
> sequence between blocks by either tangling the entire file whereby the
> blocks are written to the source code file in the sequence in which they
Dear All,
AFAIU in the current support for literate programming I can establish
sequence between blocks by either tangling the entire file whereby the
blocks are written to the source code file in the sequence in which they
appear in the org-mode file or I can name the blocks and use noweb
linking
11 matches
Mail list logo
