Karthik Chikmagalur writes:
> After trying it for a while, my opinion is that this way of getting LSP
> support is a hack and somewhat fragile. This is why I haven't worked on
> it since.
I was more referring to the idea with tangling
https://gist.github.com/bigodel/15599f3c1da23d1008b7d7d4ff8b
>> We are not in hurry. Any progress will be appreciated as long as there
>> is some.
>
> Unfortunately, this important patch is stuck.
> It would be nice is somebody revived the work on it.
> Anyone interested will do, not just people involved in this thread :)
After trying it for a while, my opi
Ihor Radchenko writes:
> We are not in hurry. Any progress will be appreciated as long as there
> is some.
Unfortunately, this important patch is stuck.
It would be nice is somebody revived the work on it.
Anyone interested will do, not just people involved in this thread :)
--
Ihor Radchenko
Ihor Radchenko writes:
> In any case, João has a working solution. Once we get some actual patch
> that applies onto Org, we can start to improve it incrementally.
It has been a while since the last update in this thread.
If other people are interested to contribute, please feel free to do so
a
On Mon, December 12 2022 13:16, Ihor Radchenko wrote:
> If an src block has :tangle option, it is probably reasonable to display
> it together with other tangled blocks.
> If an src blocks does not have a :tangle option, :context might be used
> as the means to group blocks together. But then, th
João Pedro writes:
> Were you thinking of having a
> =:context {yes|no}= option on src blocks?
I am not sure if yes|no are good values.
If an src block has :tangle option, it is probably reasonable to display
it together with other tangled blocks.
If an src blocks does not have a :tangle option
On Tue, November 22 2022 02:23, Ihor Radchenko wrote:
> It looks like you have done something very close to what we are
> discussing. Would you be interested to create a patch against Org core
> instead of relying on advises?
That would be wonderful! That code has some ugly hacks, some of which
"Cook, Malcolm" writes:
> Coming late to this discussion….
>
> Might there be some value in considering the aims and methods of
> [Polymode](https://github.com/polymode/polymode#readme) in this regard?
> There seems to be a significant overlap of concerns.
>
> Just a thought.
I can see why yo
Coming late to this discussion….
Might there be some value in considering the aims and methods of
[Polymode](https://github.com/polymode/polymode#readme) in this regard? There
seems to be a significant overlap of concerns.
Just a thought.
Cheers,
Malcolm
João Pedro writes:
> I think the contextual src block could be split from the LSP
> functionality, since it could be used in other contexts other than
> dealing with language servers. My iteration is not tied to anything in
> particular and simply creates a source buffer with the whole context fo
Hey there, Karthik!
I've had a similar idea, though not tied to LSP or anything. I created a
=org-contextual-src-mode= [1] ir order to have completion working on
Ledger and LaTeX source buffers. It also handles tangling! I have made a
Gist explaining, in a literate style, my process of building su
[Just following this up as more than one month have passed since the last
activity in this thread.]
Karthic, have you had a chance to work on this further?
If you stumbled upon difficulties, feel free to ask anything. We can try
to help.
--
Ihor Radchenko // yantar92,
Org mode contributor,
Le
Karthik Chikmagalur writes:
>> You already implemented a way to associate the org-edit-src buffer with
>> the fully tangled code. Then, why not make it simple and do the real
>> tangling first and then make org-edit-src work directly with a real
>> file buffer associated with the tangled file?
>
> This is not limited to Eglot support. M-x compile, eglot, project.el,
> xrefs, and similar tools all assume that current code buffer is
> associated with a real file in a real project folder, possibly
> containing all kinds of hints like .gitignore, .dir-locals.el, etc.
I hadn't considered this.
Karthik Chikmagalur writes:
> I've added limited support for LSP via Eglot in org-src-mode buffers. I was
> intending to publish it as a package but it was suggested to me that it could
> live as part of Org instead, especially now that Eglot is intended to be part
> of the upcoming Emacs rel
+1
Good patch, will it consider to also support package "lsp-mode"? Or at
least make it easy to extending for other lsp-related packages?
--
[ stardiviner ]
I try to make every word tell the meaning that I want to express without
misunderstanding.
Blog: https://stardiviner.github.io/
IRC(lib
Hi folks,
I've added limited support for LSP via Eglot in org-src-mode buffers. I was
intending to publish it as a package but it was suggested to me that it could
live as part of Org instead, especially now that Eglot is intended to be part
of the upcoming Emacs release. Here are some detail
17 matches
Mail list logo
