Eric Schulte writes:
> Hi,
>
> Indeed this example below no longer works, however I believe the new
> behavior is both desired and permanent. I'll explain and include an
> option for how your example could be restructured to work with the new
> code.
>
> We ran into problems automatically removi
Hi,
With noweb, one can continue a source block that one started
earlier. Can this not be done with Babel?
If not, I'm struggling a little with how to do LP using Babel...
Thanks.
"Sebastien Vauban"
writes:
> Hi Neeum,
>
> Neeum Zawan wrote:
>> With noweb, one can continue a source block that one started
>> earlier. Can this not be done with Babel?
>>
>> If not, I'm struggling a little with how to do LP using Babel...
>
Eric Schulte writes:
>>> Second solution: create one sole block that will be tangled, and which
>>> contains your other blocks (using the <> syntax), in the order you
>>> want.
>>
>> I had thought of this, but I find it somewhat lacking. Consider my
>> example above. I could have created a <> in
Eric Schulte writes:
>>>
>>> I like the concision of the "=original-name" syntax used by noweb, but I
>>> would lean towards the use of a ":noweb-append" type header argument as
>>> suggested above because currently the names of blocks in Babel carry no
>>> semantic content and I'd prefer to leave
Achim Gratz writes:
> Eric Schulte writes:
>
>> append the bodies of all blocks of the same name are appended
>>during tangling
>
> several blocks with the same name seem a bit dubious, would it not be
> cleaner to have an index part to the block name and a range expression
> for the con
Eric Schulte writes:
> Hi Neeum,
>
> Thanks for your feedback. Your point is well taken about the
> flexibility of header arguments, and the ability of a header argument
> based solution to overwrite blocks.
>
> I would mention that variables such as the newly introduced
> `org-babel-tangle-name
Eric Schulte writes:
> Could you try the attached example file? I first evaluated the
> following elisp code to set the combination variable's value to append.
Your example works if there are no noweb references.
See the modified one where I have noweb references. Note that when
expanding th
Eric Schulte writes:
> It would be possible to also implement the concatenation behavior during
> noweb expansion, however I'd prefer to first wait for a response to my
> recent other email to this thread asking for a more clear explication of
> existing noweb behavior.
>
> The only remaining time
Eric Schulte writes:
> Rather than feeling our way forward step by step it seems that simply
> following the behavior of noweb would both
> 1. allow for easy transition between noweb and babel
> 2. benefit from the years of experience and design accumulated in the
>noweb project
>
> Does anyo
Eric Schulte writes:
> How about the following solution, which is based on a new :noweb-ref
> header argument.
>
> When expanding ``noweb'' style references the bodies of all code block
> with /either/ a block name matching the reference name /or/ a :noweb-ref
> header argument matching the refer
"Sebastien Vauban"
writes:
> The only case that pops up to my mind now, of such a use case where
> overwriting could be "needed" (well, let's say useful) is for some pedagogical
> document that one would write, where code is constructed from a simplistic
> (and buggy) approach to a correct one.
>
Hi,
When I try to run Org-drill, I get the backtrace below.
Others are seeing it too:
https://bitbucket.org/eeeickythump/org-drill/issues/62/org-drill-doesnt-work-with-org-mode-92
Ideas?
Thanks.
Debugger entered--Lisp error: (error "Invalid match tag: \"\"")
signal(error ("Invalid match ta
Hi,
When I try to run Org-drill, I get the backtrace below.
Others are seeing it too:
https://bitbucket.org/eeeickythump/org-drill/issues/62/org-drill-doesnt-work-with-org-mode-92
Ideas?
Thanks.
Debugger entered--Lisp error: (error "Invalid match tag: \"\"")
signal(error ("Invalid match ta
14 matches
Mail list logo
