Hi Carsten,
Carsten Dominik writes:
> Hi Eric, thanks for this.
>
> I would actually like to have a variable that will exclude evaluation
> from being added to the C-c C-c hook. I think users will understand
> better how to use this, and customizing it will work for sure.
> Explicitly removing
Hi Eric,
thanks, I think we have a good solution, at least for the time being.
I have started the security section in the manual, please feel free to
add to it.
- Carsten
On Jul 1, 2010, at 4:55 PM, Eric Schulte wrote:
Hi,
Thanks for finding such a good compromises solution. This new pl
Hi Eric, thanks for this.
I would actually like to have a variable that will exclude evaluation
from being added to the C-c C-c hook. I think users will understand
better
how to use this, and customizing it will work for sure. Explicitly
removing it from the hook will only work after load ti
Sébastien Vauban wrote:
> Nick Dokos wrote:
> > Carsten Dominik wrote:
> >>
> >> :-) Actually, in this specific area I had been thinking to removing or at
> >> least deprecating shell and elisp links, because the Org-babel way is much
> >> better and clearer to have that code in a block, rather
Hi,
Thanks for getting the safety catch on fast. And thanks to Matt Lundin
and Carsten Dominik for raising the concerns that were mounting in my
mind as I caught up with the powers Org-Babel have placed at my
fingertips. I love knowing it's there, but until I learn to use it, I
just want to k
Hi,
Pursuant to the below, I've created a new "babel-safety" branch of the
repository. It includes two new commits, the first of which implements
confirmation before *any* code block evaluation, adds the keybinds for
code block evaluation, and adds a documentation for disassociating code
block ev
Carsten Dominik wrote:
>
> :-) Actually, in this specific area I had been thinking to
> removing or at least deprecating shell and elisp links,
> because the Org-babel way is much better and clearer to have
> that code in a block, rather than hiding it in the invisible
> part of of a link.
>
Hi,
Thanks for finding such a good compromises solution. This new plan
looks great to me, specifics below
Carsten Dominik writes:
> Hi everyone,
>
> first of all, I think it is clear that I may have overreacted
> with the "6 point plan". But it is good that we are having
> this discussion.
>
Hi everyone,
first of all, I think it is clear that I may have overreacted
with the "6 point plan". But it is good that we are having
this discussion.
On Jun 30, 2010, at 6:25 PM, Eric Schulte wrote:
Hi Carsten, Matt, Scott,
Carsten Dominik writes:
Hi Matt, hi Eric,
Matt, thanks a lot fo
Hi,
To add some concreteness to my suggestions I'm attaching to possible
patches.
The first introduces a global `org-confirm-babel-evaluate' variable
which defaults to t, meaning all code block evaluations will require
explicit confirmation from the user.
The second patch adds an `org-babel-disa
Hi Carsten, Matt, Scott,
Carsten Dominik writes:
> Hi Matt, hi Eric,
>
> Matt, thanks a lot for bringing this up. This is indeed a very
> important and serious issue. We need to address it. We need to
> step back and reconsider this carefully.
>
> Don't get me wrong, I absolutely think that O
On Jun 30, 2010, at 2:53 PM, Matthew Lundin wrote:
Hi Carsten,
Thanks so much both for thinking this through. And thanks again, Eric,
for your work in integrating org-babel into org-mode---including
taking
into account a humble user's concerns! :)
Carsten Dominik writes:
Here is what I p
Hi Carsten,
Thanks so much both for thinking this through. And thanks again, Eric,
for your work in integrating org-babel into org-mode---including taking
into account a humble user's concerns! :)
Carsten Dominik writes:
> Here is what I propose (several items are similar to what Eric proposes)
On Tue, Jun 29, 2010 at 11:03 PM, Eric Schulte wrote:
> > - Org-babel adds rather specific and complex functionality to org-mode
> > that those who use it as a simple outliner and todo manager do not
> > require. (In other words, an option to turn it off might be nice for
> > those w
Hi Matt, hi Eric,
Matt, thanks a lot for bringing this up. This is indeed a very
important and serious issue. We need to address it. We need to
step back and reconsider this carefully.
Don't get me wrong, I absolutely think that Org Babel should give
you enough rope to hang yourself. But we
non-empty attachment
diff --git a/Makefile b/Makefile
index d4da79d..f6538ce 100644
--- a/Makefile
+++ b/Makefile
@@ -17,7 +17,9 @@ EMACS=emacs
prefix=/usr/local
# Where local lisp files go.
-lispdir = $(prefix)/share/emacs/site-lisp
+lispdir = $(prefix)/share/emacs/site-lisp
+lispbdir = $(
Nick Dokos writes:
> Eric Schulte wrote:
>
>> --=-=-=
>>
>> with attachment ;)
>>
>> >
>> > I hardly believe this worked since it is the product of naive Makefile
>> > pattern matching (which has never worked for me in the past), however it
>> > appears to be compiling on my system.
>> >
>> >
Eric Schulte wrote:
> --=-=-=
>
> with attachment ;)
>
> >
> > I hardly believe this worked since it is the product of naive Makefile
> > pattern matching (which has never worked for me in the past), however it
> > appears to be compiling on my system.
> >
> > If someone who actually uses "make
Matt Lundin wrote:
> When I run make clean && make && make install I find that the language
> directory is not installed. Does the langs directory require a manual
> installation?
>
It's part of the git repository, so it should be present after you do a
git pull.
> Also, with make install, th
On Mon, Jun 28, 2010 at 6:03 PM, Eric Schulte wrote:
> Hi Rainer,
>
> I'm happy this was useful
>
> Rainer M Krug writes:
>
> > On Fri, Jun 25, 2010 at 5:37 PM, Eric Schulte >wrote:
>
> [...]
> >> >
> >> > *** Start babel
> >> > #+begin_src emacs-lisp
> >> > (org-babel-load-library-of-babel)
>
Hi Rainer,
I'm happy this was useful
Rainer M Krug writes:
> On Fri, Jun 25, 2010 at 5:37 PM, Eric Schulte wrote:
[...]
>> >
>> > *** Start babel
>> > #+begin_src emacs-lisp
>> > (org-babel-load-library-of-babel)
>> > #+end_src
>>
>> the above becomes
>>
>> #+begin_src emacs-lisp
>> (org-ba
On Fri, Jun 25, 2010 at 5:37 PM, Eric Schulte wrote:
> Hi Rainer,
>
Hi Eric
>
> First I'll give some expanded instructions in the hopes of helping out
> anyone else affected by my lack of good instructions in the announcement
> email. Then I'll provide a re-write of your config below as an exa
On Jun 26, 2010, at 6:30 PM, Štěpán Němec wrote:
"Eric Schulte" writes:
Štěpán Němec writes:
[...]
How come some of your rewrites above still use the `org-babel-'
prefix?
(As a side note, I don't see what Emacs guidelines suggest `ob-'
is more
appropriate than `org-babel-', and I wou
Also sprach Eric Schulte:
Štěpán Němec writes:
"Eric Schulte" writes:
Štěpán Němec writes:
[...]
How come some of your rewrites above still use the `org-babel-' prefix?
(As a side note, I don't see what Emacs guidelines suggest `ob-' is more
appropriate than `org-babel-', and I would
Hi
First of all thanks for integrating Org-babel into Org-mode.
But for the less fluent elisp and org-mode users, I am slightly confused in
the changes necessary on my side.
I have the following in my emacs.org file:
#+begin_src emacs-lisp
(require 'org-babel-R) ;; requires R and ess
Hi Rainer,
First I'll give some expanded instructions in the hopes of helping out
anyone else affected by my lack of good instructions in the announcement
email. Then I'll provide a re-write of your config below as an example.
Babel took the integration into Org-mode as an opportunity to do some
Hi Sébastien,
Sébastien Vauban writes:
[...]
>
> For my own understanding, what's the status of `Org-babel-screen', for which
> I've never been able to understand completely all the differences with `sh' in
> `Org-babel'?
>
I believe screen has more of a focus on sustained interaction with an
i
Hi Nathan,
Nathan Neff writes:
> I checked out the latest org mode, and I'm getting "Symbol's function
> definition is void: second"
>
> I ran git-bisect, and the error was introduced with the merge of
> org-babel into the main
> branch.
>
Part of merging into Org-mode (and meeting the Emacs co
I checked out the latest org mode, and I'm getting "Symbol's function
definition is void: second"
I ran git-bisect, and the error was introduced with the merge of
org-babel into the main
branch.
The code that's causing the error is here:
#+tblname:shortcut-definition-list
| Something | a
29 matches
Mail list logo
