Hi Greg,
Soapy Smith writes:
> Is there a way to get the
> complete code blocks exported in an entire org file using a global
> option?
I think you want :export both -- see tangle export options in the
manual.
> Python code blocks are used for comparison. There were some
> differences.
Plea
Here are the files from testing of Clojure code blocks with the latest
master:
https://github.com/Greg-R/org-babel-clojure-tests?source=cc
The PDF file is the result of a LaTeX export.
The code blocks were forced to appear as they do in the org file by
wrapping them in begin_example/end_example.
Great news!
I will update my system to the master.
I will create an org file with permutations of the :results option and
export to LaTeX and HTML. Perhaps even compare to Python behavior.
I will attempt to push the test files to github later today. I need the
git practice!
Regards,
Greg
On
Hi Greg,
Soapy Smith writes:
> The problem is that the results inserted into the org document should be
> tabularized.
This should now be fixed in master -- thanks for further testing,
and thanks to Eric for giving the solution.
--
Bastien
It is better. To really stress it, I tried a two-row table:
#+begin_src clojure :results table
[[:ny :nj :ct]
[ 7 9 4]]
#+end_src
#+RESULTS:
| :ny | :nj | :ct |
| 7 | 9 | 4 |
On Wed, Jan 29, 2014 at 10:28 AM, Bastien wrote:
> Eric Schulte writes:
>
> > Try evaluating the fol
Eric Schulte writes:
> Try evaluating the following and see how it works.
It works fine for me:
,
| #+BEGIN_SRC clojure :results table
| (map #(* %1 3) '(1 2 3))
| #+END_SRC
|
| #+RESULTS:
| | 3 | 6 | 9 |
`
> This simply copies
> the results handling from the slime backend to the cide
Soapy Smith writes:
> Yes, I agree the Clojure behavior is not quite correct. But all the
> functionality is there if both the old and new are combined. I think
> only a rearrangement of existing code is required.
>
Try evaluating the following and see how it works. This simply copies
the res
Yes, I agree the Clojure behavior is not quite correct. But all the
functionality is there if both the old and new are combined. I think
only a rearrangement of existing code is required.
I like the idea of comparing to the behavior of Python code blocks.
I've got a Coursera class coming up whic
Soapy Smith writes:
> Christian, could you try :results table with Python and reply back with
> the #+RESULTS:?
Same as the default, i.e. a table, as expected.
#+RESULTS:
| 1 | 2 | 3 |
The Babel/Clojure behavior you report does seem buggy.
I'm afraid I can't be of further help, but hopefully
Hi Christian, I think that is a very good point!
>From the manual, the explanation of what is returned as a result
using :results raw
"raw The results are interpreted as raw Org mode code and are inserted
directly into
the buffer. If the results look like a table they will be aligned as
such by O
Soapy Smith writes:
> The problem is that the results inserted into the org document should be
> tabularized. This is not happening using the latest version of org.
> Here is the simplest possible example:
>
> #+begin_src clojure :results value raw
> [1 2 3 4]
> #+end_src
>
> #+RESULTS:
> [1 2 3
Hello to the list, my first message here.
This is in regards to code blocks in the Clojure language.
The problem is that the results inserted into the org document should be
tabularized. This is not happening using the latest version of org.
Here is the simplest possible example:
#+begin_src cl
12 matches
Mail list logo
