Hello,
John Kitchin writes:
> Thanks for the clarification. Is there any chance you know why this
> transformation is done? Does it avoid some problem?
No idea.
Regards,
--
Nicolas Goaziou
Nicolas Goaziou writes:
Thanks for the clarification. Is there any chance you know why this
transformation is done? Does it avoid some problem?
> Hello,
>
> John Kitchin writes:
>
>> Thanks for the tips. I did not see a way to do the advice here. For what
>> I need, we need to save parameters f
Hello,
John Kitchin writes:
> Thanks for the tips. I did not see a way to do the advice here. For what
> I need, we need to save parameters for each code block. But it appears
> they are all affected by one function org-babel-exp-process-buffer, and
> advising this kind of function is tantamount
Charles Berry writes:
Thanks for the tips. I did not see a way to do the advice here. For what
I need, we need to save parameters for each code block. But it appears
they are all affected by one function org-babel-exp-process-buffer, and
advising this kind of function is tantamount to rewriting t
Aaron Ecay writes:
Thanks for the confirmation this happens, and the pointer to where it
happens.
I guess there was at one point a good reason to do this, but I cannot
see it directly.
I found a way to do it with filters and preprocessing, which is
illustrated here:
http://kitchingroup.cheme.c
Hi John,
Look at the functions ‘org-babel-exp-src-block’ which calls
‘org-babel-exp-do-export’, which calls ‘org-babel-exp-code’. The tl;dr
version is that indeed the babel export machinery does change the code
block in substantial ways, including the removal of parts of it.
This plays merry hel
John Kitchin andrew.cmu.edu> writes:
>
> I did some more digging on the missing :parameters during export, and it
> seems that the src block itself is different during export than in the
> buffer. Below illustrates what I mean. In the buffer, if I look at the
> contents of the code block using
