Sébastien Vauban <wxhgmqzgw...@spammotel.com> writes:
> Hi Eric,
>
> "Eric Schulte" wrote:
>> Sébastien Vauban <wxhgmqzgw...@spammotel.com> writes:
>>>
>>> What's the impact of specifying "sh" or "bash" for the snippet?
>>
>> While "sh" blocks should work "bash" blocks will not be recognized. In
>> org-babel "sh" doesn't explicitly mean the "sh" command, but rather means
>> 'run shell' which will default to whatever shell you have configured.
>
> I wonder if it wouldn't be beneficial to make such a feature explicit. I think
> the right shell environment cannot be guessed at runtime. Am I right?
>
Hmm, currently we just use the `shell' command which defaults to the
user's defined shell. I would have to investigate as to how to
explicitly specify a particular shell to run, but I certainly do see
your point that there are times when an explicit shell environment would
be desirable.
I'll create a TODO to reflect this need.
>
> Let's imagine two use cases:
>
> 1. I only have zsh on my machine, and I'm writing a document with bash code
> blocks. What if the user executing them is using zsh as his default shell?
>
> 2. I have both bash and zsh installed on my machine. I want to write some code
> blocks in bash, and other in zsh. How can I make the difference explicit?
>
> BTW, a "needed" feature is the executable flag for shell scripts. I found a
> reference to it ("PROPOSED make tangled files executable? At least if using
> shebang line") on http://orgmode.org/worg/org-contrib/babel/development.php.
>
Yes, I agree that this should be implemented, patches are welcome :)
Thanks for the very useful feedback, hopefully we'll be able to make
some progress in these areas soon.
Best -- Eric
>
> Thanks anyway for your marvelous tool (replacing my need for Nuweb, and giving
> me much more opportunities),
> Seb
_______________________________________________
Emacs-orgmode mailing list
Please use `Reply All' to send replies to the list.
Emacs-orgmode@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/emacs-orgmode
