Hello, Vladimir Panteleev <thecybersha...@gmail.com> writes:
> On 2018-03-14 15:00, Nicolas Goaziou wrote: >> I disagree. You are testing an implementation detail here: the fact that >> "$" is not necessarily a prefix. According to the docstring, it should >> be, so the test should use that, too. What if we rewrite `org-sbe' at >> some point? > > I'm sorry if I didn't explain it properly in my previous messages. > I'll try again. > > The fact that $"foo" and $ "foo" mean the same thing is not an > implementation detail of org-sbe. It is a consequence of Emacs Lisp > grammar. [...] > So, whether the test case has a space between $ and "a\"b\"c" is as > relevant as whether it has comments, or uses tabs instead of spaces > for indentation. > > I hope this explanation can put this issue to rest. We're clearly mis-communicating. I know the difference between a symbol and a string, and how `read' operates. I think what puzzles me is some design choices made in `org-sbe', and the fact that the second note of its docstring is clear as mud. > org-sbe's docstring is misleading: I agree. > $ is not a way to quote just table references, but any string literals > in general. Had it been otherwise (i.e. $-prefixing being part of the > table reference syntax), there would be no way to pass a string > literal (which isn't an interpolated table cell value) to the > indicated function. The doc string should probably be improved in this > regard. I consider it to be a bug if you need to write $"string" instead of "string" in any `org-sbe' call. We should not test such a mis-feature, which should be removed. > Adding a test which uses a table reference instead of a string literal > won't hurt, but it would be testing several layers at once, and, > assuming cell value interpolation into emacs lisp table formulas is > already tested somewhere else, superfluous. Let me insist on this. $"string" (or $ "string") is very wrong. Please do not write your tests on top of this. IIUC, `org-sbe' is about passing table fields into source blocks. Let's test that instead, with a table, and a source block. I don't mind superfluous coverage. It is just a matter of tests. Your changes sound good. So, would you mind adjusting your tests so we can move forward? Regards, -- Nicolas Goaziou
