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
11 matches
Mail list logo
