Hi Eric,
Eric Schulte wrote:
> "Sebastien Vauban" <wxhgmqzgw...@spammotel.com> writes:
>> Eric Schulte wrote:
>>> The standard-code-block-syntax branch has been merged into the master
>>> branch of the git repository. This brings two much discussed changes to
>>> Org-mode, first a standard set of keywords for code blocks and second
>>> the ability to accumulate properties by appending a "+" to the end of
>>> the property name. For much more information on both of these changes
>>> see the relevant commits [1] and [2] respectively. A function for
>>> updating existing Org-mode files to use the new standardized code block
>>> keywords is inline below [3], additionally I've updated my collection of
>>> Org-mode code block scraps [4].
>>
>> Nice to see it's finally in!
>
> Thanks, me too.
>
>> However, I have to report a _tiny_ feature of applying your function:
>>
>>> [3] Function to update Org-mode buffers to use the new code block syntax.
>>> (defun update-org-buffer ()
>>> "Update an Org-mode buffer to the new data, code block and call line
>>> syntax."
>>> (interactive)
>>> (save-excursion
>>> (flet ((to-re (lst) (concat "^[ \t]*#\\+" (regexp-opt lst t)
>>> "\\(\\[\\([[:alnum:]]+\\)\\]\\)?\\:[
>>> \t]*"))
>>> (update (re new)
>>> (goto-char (point-min))
>>> (while (re-search-forward re nil t)
>>> (replace-match new nil nil nil 1))))
>>> (let ((old-re (to-re '("RESULTS" "DATA" "SRCNAME" "SOURCE")))
>>> (lob-re (to-re '("LOB")))
>>> (case-fold-search t))
>>> (update old-re "name")
>>> (update lob-re "call")))))
>>
>> When run on a buffer containing:
>>
>> #+property: var foo=1
>>
>> #+begin_src emacs-lisp
>> foo
>> #+end_src
>>
>> #+results:
>> : 1
>>
>> it will translate `#+results' to `#+name':
>>
>> #+property: var foo=1
>>
>> #+begin_src emacs-lisp
>> foo
>> #+end_src
>>
>> #+name:
>> : 1
>>
>> Further evaluations of that *un-named* code block will leave the `#+name'
>> line.
>>
>> To get back the expected `#+results' line, you have to manually remove that
>> results line, and re-evaluate the code block.
>
> This, given that results and name are technically still synonyms this
> isn't necessarily a bug
I fully agree. That's why I used the term "tiny feature" ;-)
> however I do agree that a version of the functions which left the #+results:
> lines immediately following code blocks unchanged would be preferable.
I would say "left the #+results: lines immediately following *un-named* code
blocks", as we would want `#+name:' to be used in all the other cases (that
is, for results of named code blocks).
Best regards,
Seb
--
Sebastien Vauban
