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 reference name /or/ a :noweb-ref >> header argument matching the reference name will be concatenated >> together to form the replacement text. >> >> By setting this header argument at the sub-tree or file level, simple >> code block concatenation may be achieved. For example, when tangling >> the following Org-mode file, the bodies of code blocks will be >> concatenated into the resulting pure code file. > > Hi, > > Your example is not completely clear. I noticed you didn't put any names > for the source blocks that use the noweb-ref. Is it necessary not to > name them,
The source code blocks may have names, as before all code block names should be unique or the behavior may be undefined. > or can one name them but their names will still have to be unique and > are orthogonal to concatenation (i.e. they have names, but the > concatenation is due to whatever the argument of noweb-ref is)? > The value of the :noweb-ref header argument supersedes the name of the code block for noweb expansion. To preserve existing semantics and to avoid requiring the use of the :noweb-ref header argument in simple cases, the code block name will be used to resolve noweb references in blocks which do not have a :noweb-ref header argument. > > I think either way, this solution serves my purpose. My original > suggestion was to have a header whose value would be "append" to allow > for concatenation if the name matches a previous source block. It seems > your solution above is the same except instead of looking at the name of > the source block, it looks at the argument of noweb-ref. > Yup, happy this sounds like it should work for your original need. > > 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 to think about what the best solution is if later > on you decide to add overwriting capability). > If someone finds a real need for overwriting code blocks, hopefully the specifics of their need will point towards an implementation. > > Thanks. Hope to see this or something like it soon. > You welcome, hope this turns out to be helpful -- Eric -- Eric Schulte http://cs.unm.edu/~eschulte/
