Achim Gratz <strom...@nexgo.de> writes: > Eric Schulte writes: >> In that thread we agreed that the expansion of no-web references >> *should* be included in code blocks for hashing, but no-one has had the >> time to implement this. > > I think we may have discussed this before, but if you make the hashes > dependent on the possibly recursive noweb expansions
What is a recursive noweb expansion? I think of the following, which will cause errors in any situation.
#+name: a #+begin_src sh echo "hi <<b>>" #+end_src #+name: b #+begin_src sh echo "hi <<a>>" #+end_src
> this would require that all expansions be re-computed all the time or > you would need to discern which of the expansions are "pure" > (i.e. depend only on their arguments, functional-style), which have > session semantics and which of the ones that have session semantics > should possibly not be re-evaluated. I'm not sure that opening this > can of worms is worth the trouble. > I still (and I think this was my issue last time) don't see how noweb expansions are more complicated than :var arguments. That said I agree that this is an edge case, and I certainly don't have time to make this change (which you right could be complex) at the moment. Best, > > > Regards, > Achim. -- Eric Schulte https://cs.unm.edu/~eschulte PGP: 0x614CA05D
