poverobuosodonati writes:
> I've documented it accordingly and wrote a test for it here:
> ...
>
> There is now also a "proper" test for
> `org-babel-csharp-additional-project-flags` and updated documentation
> for the intended use of this customization:
> ...
Thanks!
Looks like you have addre
Most babel packages are rather lax on yes/no. Often, something like
:header-arg (lisp-expr ...), when evaluates to non-nil and not "no", is
treated as "yes". So, what you do is fine. But it should be documented.
I've documented it accordingly and wrote a test for it here:
https://codeberg.org/buo
poverobuosodonati writes:
>> Consider header argument set for a subtree:
> This actually works without an explicit "yes" (or similar) option. This
> is because `org-babel-default-header-args:csharp' checks for "no" and
> only if that is given as a header-arg, it will omit the main function in
Another note here: you may probably use `unwind-protect' instead of
progn to be safe.
Oh yes, that makes sense. Applied an `undwind-protect' here to reset the
framework version to the "previous" one.
Consider header argument set for a subtree:
This actually works without an explicit "yes" (or
poverobuosodonati writes:
>> Finally, `with-try-set-dotnet-version' is questionable. It is used once
>> so you may as well put the code directly inside `with-newest-dotnet'.
> Agreed, I inlined this.
Another note here: you may probably use `unwind-protect' instead of
progn to be safe.
https://co
Better use testing/lisp/text-ox-md.el header that does not have such
line.
Adapted it accordingly.
Regarding the prefix-topic: I was a bit confused with that and thought
that this must be some sort of "special test convention" that I am not
aware of. Sorry for that, and thanks for clarifying.
poverobuosodonati writes:
>> 1. Let's call the file a part of Emacs (we plan to move tests to Emacs
>> eventually)
>
> For this I would need some additional support as I don't exactly
> understand what you mean here. Do you mean where to put it as in like
> "emacs/test/lisp" instead of "org-mo
1. Let's call the file a part of Emacs (we plan to move tests to Emacs
eventually)
For this I would need some additional support as I don't exactly
understand what you mean here. Do you mean where to put it as in like
"emacs/test/lisp" instead of "org-mode/testing/lisp"?
2. Please prefix t
poverobuosodonati writes:
>> Next step will be writing tests.
>
> The project now contains the file test-ob-csharp.el [1] along with a
> test org-file ob-csharp-test.org [2]. I tried to follow the examples of
> the test files under /testing/lisp/ and /testing/examples /of the
> org-mode reposi
Someone™ should do it and produce
patches ;)
I will raise my hand once the discussion proceeded in such a direction 🙂
Nitpick: readme still mentions them.
I did not yet adapt this with the last iteration as I wanted the code to
be somewhat "stable" first. It is updated now and should reflect
poverobuosodonati writes:
>> To me, it looks like this is going into the territory of compiled
>> sources being the result of evaluation, as we discussed in
>> https://list.orgmode.org/orgmode/1819406926.505980.1701990611...@fidget.co-bxl/
>> But that's a totally new behavior we may want to discu
For C#, it may or may not be a good idea. Here, I tend to agree with
Stefan Nobis - if it is easy for you (including adding docs and tests),
go for it. Otherwise optional.
This is now a header argument (I called it "framework" as it appeared to
be the best fit). I kept "org-babel-csharp-default-t
poverobuosodonati writes:
>> ob-csharp from org-contrib uses mcs here. I am wondering why you use
>> something different. Is there any syntax difference? Something else? (I
>> have no knowledge of C#)
>
> In fact, this was a deliberate decision. ... Further, it is
> recommended by mono itself to
Ihor Radchenko writes:
> Stefan Nobis writes:
>> poverobuosodonati writes:
>> [org-babel-csharp-target-framework]
>>> I am a bit undecided whether or not it would make sense to expose this
>>> as a header argument as I understand this to be rather "static" as in
>>> there might not be a desir
Stefan Nobis writes:
> poverobuosodonati writes:
>
> [org-babel-csharp-target-framework]
>> I am a bit undecided whether or not it would make sense to expose this
>> as a header argument as I understand this to be rather "static" as in
>> there might not be a desire to change this from code bloc
poverobuosodonati writes:
[org-babel-csharp-target-framework]
> I am a bit undecided whether or not it would make sense to expose this
> as a header argument as I understand this to be rather "static" as in
> there might not be a desire to change this from code block to code
> block. What do you
First of all, thank you very much for the detailed review, this is awesome!
I have adapted some bits and pieces and tried to elaborate on the open
points in the following.
Looks like some of the new header arguments can only be "yes"/"no". If
so, you should reflect this fact in this variable.
poverobuosodonati writes:
> I have put my "patch request" in a public repository. Please find it here
> https://codeberg.org/buoso/csharp-babel
Thanks!
See my initial comments on the code below:
> ;; default header arguments for C#
> (defvar org-babel-default-header-args:csharp
> '((main . :a
Thank you so much for your input and guidance.
I have put my "patch request" in a public repository. Please find it here
https://codeberg.org/buoso/csharp-babel
I've tried to document the incentive as well as the usage quite extensive.
I would like to propose to merge this as a maintainer as I'
Buoso Donati writes:
> Are there any objections against me trying to upstream this addition?
C# is a popular language. I have no objections to adding it to the core.
> ... I would go ahead and try to open a pull request following the
> guidelines from this documentation
> (https://orgmode.org/w
Thanks a lot for your input!
Have you looked at ob-C.el or ob-java.el? I am not sure how similar C#
is to either C/C++/D or Java, but it may make sense to try to extend one
of those.
In fact, I was most inspired by the existing ob-C.el and ob-java.el!
From what I understand C# (in conjunction
On Mon, Jan 06 2025, poverobuosodonati wrote:
>
>
>
>
> Hi guys,
>
>
>
> I am a newbie in that I've never contributed so far. Thus, I would like to
> start this journey with pinging the mailing list first as it is indicated in
> the contributing documentation.
>
Welcome.
>
>
> A
22 matches
Mail list logo
