Gnarly--and thank you for the help!
On Wed, Aug 12, 2015 at 9:41 PM, Kyle Meyer wrote:
> Matthew MacLean writes:
>
> > In that case... Here is another patch with your suggestions.
>
> I've pushed this (stripping out the test). Thank you for the fix.
>
> --
> Kyle
>
Matthew MacLean writes:
> In that case... Here is another patch with your suggestions.
I've pushed this (stripping out the test). Thank you for the fix.
--
Kyle
In that case... Here is another patch with your suggestions.
Thanks for taking the time to point out all that..! I'll be sure to keep it
all in mind if I submit something else later.
On Wed, Aug 12, 2015 at 11:21 AM, Kyle Meyer wrote:
> Matthew MacLean writes:
>
> > Alright, done. Is this acce
Matthew MacLean writes:
> Alright, done. Is this acceptable? (Provided that tests don't count towards
> line count, of course)
Thanks. A few minor comments on the commit message.
> Subject: [PATCH] ob-ruby: Fix double-escaping
>
> * lisp/ob-ruby.el: Remove second call to
> `org-babel-ruby-ta
On Tue, Aug 11, 2015 at 11:53 PM, Kyle Meyer wrote:
> In addition to the formatting, the message should include "TINYCHANGE".
> This may be beyond what qualifies as a tiny change if tests count toward
> changed lines (Bastien or Nicolas?). If it's acceptable as a tiny
> change, please combine th
Matthew MacLean wrote:
[...]
> ...here is the git format-patch of the ob-ruby.el change!
> I also created one for a test to check for basic Ruby evaluation
> capabilities. It should catch errors that break evaluation like this in
> ob-ruby.
Thanks. The code change looks good to me and fixes the
If the stricter definition covers everything that org-babel-escape-script
was supposed to do... I agree we should keep it.
My problem was I wasn't sure if the function got pruned of something it
needed.
But if that's not the case...
On Tue, Aug 11, 2015 at 6:52 PM, Kyle Meyer wrote:
> Feel free
Matthew MacLean wrote:
> Yeah, my initial patch was actually for ob-ruby, though, when looking for
> the change that broke it for the report, I found a change in behaviour of
> the escaping function and figured that Ruby might not be the only thing
> broken.
Yes, that makes sense, but glancing at
Yeah, my initial patch was actually for ob-ruby, though, when looking for
the change that broke it for the report, I found a change in behaviour of
the escaping function and figured that Ruby might not be the only thing
broken.
So, instead, I restored the original permissive behaviour of
org-babel
Kyle Meyer wrote:
> It seems like org-babel-execute already covers this processing.
s/org-babel-execute/org-babel-execute:ruby/
--
Kyle
Matthew MacLean wrote:
> Yo~!
>
> fa5fd6351605912ec75e783cb626497b1ebe471e introduced a change where
> org-babel-script-escape stopped accepting numbers. This caused an issue in
> ob-ruby.el where when trying to evaluate something like "2 + 2", you would
> get the message:
>
> `org-babel-script-
Yo~!
fa5fd6351605912ec75e783cb626497b1ebe471e introduced a change where
org-babel-script-escape stopped accepting numbers. This caused an issue in
ob-ruby.el where when trying to evaluate something like "2 + 2", you would
get the message:
`org-babel-script-escape' expects a string
This broke e
12 matches
Mail list logo
