Vladimir Nikishkin writes:
> So, my point is the following. A shebang is an almost universally
> accepted way to specify which interpreter should be used for code
> evaluation.
>
> In the ob-core.el, at line 787, the function called
> org-babel-expand-src-block makes a buffer out of the noweb-e
Well, why exactly Racket people decided to introduce the #lang
directive in such a way that it looks like a shell comment or a
shebang line seems to elude my understanding.
(declare :lang 'whatever), at least to me, seems much more lispy, and
even (read) able by a standard reader (which could later
Hi Vladimir,
I have encountered similar issues with wanting to have a racket
#lang line included in a tangled block while also allowing org to know
exactly which #lang it is working with. I haven't found a good
solution. One issue with embedding the shebang when editing a buffer
is that it is ve
So, my point is the following. A shebang is an almost universally
accepted way to specify which interpreter should be used for code
evaluation.
In the ob-core.el, at line 787, the function called
org-babel-expand-src-block makes a buffer out of the noweb-expanded
code.
(I am working with org 20200
Hi Vladimir,
Vladimir Nikishkin writes:
> I use C-c C-v C-v quite often to check the final file produced.
> I use ob-shell with the :shebang of "#!/usr/bin/chibi-scheme", because
> my code is actually scheme-script, and I need to use :stdin, which
> isn't supported by ob-scheme and geiser. (And
I use C-c C-v C-v quite often to check the final file produced.
I use ob-shell with the :shebang of "#!/usr/bin/chibi-scheme", because
my code is actually scheme-script, and I need to use :stdin, which
isn't supported by ob-scheme and geiser. (And geiser also has some not
inconveniences).
However,
