Hi Nicolas, This is the right direction I think. I added a similar command to a project that I've been working but I use the Ruby parser so the functionality is less: https://github.com/wallyqs/org-converge/blob/master/bin/org-tangle
So... I have a added a link to your project. Thanks for sharing! - Wally On Tue, Jun 10, 2014 at 11:46 PM, Nicolas Girard <girard.nico...@gmail.com> wrote: > Hi folks, > > I've released today a couple of tools named "org-tangle" and > "org-weave" in a public GitHub repository: > https://github.com/ngirard/org-noweb > > I thought that Org's literate programming abilities deserved to be > made accessible non-interactively from the command-line via "official" > commands, and I hope this repository will help establish them. > > The benefits of such an approach I can think of are: > - to provide people with reference tools they can refer to; > - to isolate common behavior from people's customization that can be > repeated consistently and reliably; > - to lower the entry barrier for newcomers; > - to attract the people who might just be interested in Org as a > literate programming tool first, before grasping other areas of the > Org "platform". > > Now, I'd be very glad if we could use this code as a starting point > and discuss about it. > > For instance: > > - What should these tools do, and how ? It seemed to me that they > should only glue functionality from external tools and libraries, > rather than embedding functionality in their cores. > > For instance, if org-weave ever had to gain cross-indexing and > referencing features similar to its oldest siblings (weave, noweave), > it should be achieved by leveraging some dedicated elisp package, > LaTeX style file, or whatever, rather than implementing them itself. > > What do you think ? > > - Into which language should these tools be written ? I've chosen the > Bash shell because it's available almost everywhere. Does it seem ok > for you ? Would it be useful to write them in POSIX-compliant code ? > > - About =org-tangle=: should it take only one org file, or several > files, as an argument ? > > I gave =org-tangle= the same behaviour than the code snippet that > can be found in Org manual > ([[info:org#Batch%20execution][info:org#Batch execution]]), so for now > you can type > > #+begin_src sh > org-tangle file1.org file2.org > #+end_src > > But it makes more sense to me, that org-tangle takes only one file, > and optionally the name of a source code block to be extracted, like > > #+begin_src sh > org-tangle file.org [chunkname] > #+end_src > > What do you think ? > > - About =org-babel-use-quick-and-dirty-noweb-expansion=: should it be > set to 't' by default ? I'd be tempted to say yes, given the dramatic > performance gain > > - etc, etc... > > Also, while not necessary, I thought it would be nice if org-noweb > tools ate their own dogfoot and extracted themselves ; so I've written > them in literate programming style and I have to say I really enjoyed > the process. > > The tools are a mix of elisp and shell code, and it seems to me like > Org + literate style really shine here at making the code readable and > understandable. > > That said, there are a few quirks into the code I'd be glad to see > disappear: > > 1. It made sense for me to write the command line options as an Org > table (look at =#tblname: options= in > https://raw.githubusercontent.com/ngirard/org-noweb/master/org-tangle.org) > ; but if you see the docstring for the =-E= option, I wanted to write > "Default value is <<emacs>>" but couldn't find a way to get this > reference to expand ; so I had to manually write "Default value is > xxxxx". Any hints ? > 2. The boilerplate fonctions =escape-quotes= and =format-options= : > could it be done in a better way ? > > Cheers, > > Nicolas > >
