Hi Seb,
"Sebastien Vauban" <wxhgmqzgw...@spammotel.com> writes:
> Hi Thomas,
>
> Thomas S. Dye wrote:
>> Is there a difference between :noweb tangle and :noweb no?
>
> Yes: ":noweb no" is the default, and must *not expand* anything.
>
>> Based on the documentation and some limited testing, I made the following
>> table.
>>
>> *** :noweb parameters
>>
>> | param | eval | tangle | export |
>> |--------+------+--------+--------|
>> | yes | + | + | + |
>> | no | - | + | - |
>
> It should be "-", "-", "-" here, if "-" means "no expansion".
>
Hmm, the manual entry for :noweb no says "However, noweb references will
still be expanded during tangling." You're right, though, :noweb no
doesn't expand noweb references during tangling. I'll work up a manual
patch.
>> | tangle | - | + | - |
>> |--------+------+--------+--------|
>> | need | + | + | - |
>>
>> I think it might be good to have a parameter that expands noweb
>> references on evaluation and tangling, but leaves them alone during
>> export. This way the code block would be fully functional, but wouldn't
>> duplicate code during export (when the noweb references are to other
>> code blocks in the same document).
>
> I'd find that interesting as well, but then the names of the code blocks must
> be visible again (in HTML and PDF exports), something that has disappeared
> over time.
Alternatively for LaTeX, some way to wrap exported code blocks in a
\begin{listing} ... \end{listing} environment, complete with caption and
label. This way the code block name could appear in the caption, and
with \listoflistings, in the document frontmatter as well.
>
> Find attached the 2 PDF I had written (in 2009) for comparing NoWeb's
> rendering of blocks and Babel's rendering. See
> http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/emacs-orgmode/2009-12/msg00170.html.
>
> Some time after that, we had block names in the HTML/PDF output, but not
> anymore.
>
> Best regards,
> Seb
All the best,
Tom
--
Thomas S. Dye
http://www.tsdye.com
