Re: cannot edit two source code examples simultaneously

From: Carsten Dominik <carsten.dominik@gmail.com>
To: Dan Davison <davison@stats.ox.ac.uk>
Cc: emacs-orgmode@gnu.org
Subject: Re: cannot edit two source code examples simultaneously
Date: Mon, 18 May 2009 12:48:30 +0200	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <17D94F21-E705-4EBA-BAB7-237524A9E36B@gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <87hbzjmyfy.fsf@stats.ox.ac.uk>

On May 17, 2009, at 7:28 PM, Dan Davison wrote:

> Following on from this, I'd like to suggest that, while it is being
> edited, the source code is removed from the org buffer, to avoid
> concurrency problems. I just had a go at that -- the patch below
> replaces the source code with a work-in-progress message that contains
> a link to the edit buffer.
>
> That brought up a couple of related questions:
>
> 1. Is there a dedicated format for an org-link to an emacs buffer? (I
>   used an elisp: link)
>
> 2. Now I'm going to be confusing. Despite me using a link inside a  
> code
>   block in that, I had previously wondered about how appropriate it is
>   that org conducts its special formatting operations inside source
>   code blocks.

It is totally inappropriate, but I have not yet figured out how to fix  
this.

- Carsten

> E.g. in R code, x[[3]] means the 3rd element of list
>   x. But that gets magically formatted by org as a link, which looks
>   weird. Do we think that the current behaviour is desirable? If not,
>   should org be prevented from formatting stuff in literal blocks, or
>   is it too inefficient or messy to implement that? (If it were
>   changed, the work-in-progress message could go outside the block.)
>
> Dan
>
> diff --git a/lisp/org.el b/lisp/org.el
> index b9df6ec..25973be 100644
> --- a/lisp/org.el
> +++ b/lisp/org.el
> @@ -6394,6 +6394,7 @@ the edited version."
> 	nil
>       (setq beg (move-marker beg (nth 0 info))
> 	    end (move-marker end (nth 1 info))
> +	    org-buffer (buffer-name)
> 	    code (buffer-substring-no-properties beg end)
> 	    lang (nth 2 info)
> 	    single (nth 3 info)
> @@ -6409,6 +6410,14 @@ the edited version."
> 	(and buffer (kill-buffer buffer))
> 	(switch-to-buffer (generate-new-buffer "*Org Edit Src Example*"))
> 	(insert code)
> +	(save-excursion
> +	  (let ((src-buffer (buffer-name)))
> +	    (set-buffer org-buffer)
> +	    (goto-char beg)
> +	    (delete-region beg end)
> +	    (insert (format "<<%s [[elisp:(switch-to-buffer \"%s\")][%s]]>>"
> +			    "Contents are currently being edited" src-buffer "here"))
> +	    (setq end (move-marker end (point)))))
> 	(remove-text-properties (point-min) (point-max)
> 				'(display nil invisible nil intangible nil))
> 	(let ((org-inhibit-startup t))
>
>
> Carsten Dominik <carsten.dominik@gmail.com> writes:
>
>> Hi Hsiu-Khuern,
>>
>> On May 15, 2009, at 7:38 AM, Hsiu-Khuern Tang wrote:
>>
>>    Hi Carsten,
>>
>>    You recently changed org-edit-src-code to use a separate buffer  
>> instead of an
>>    indirect buffer.  One side effect of this is that I can no  
>> longer edit several
>>    code examples at the same time: opening the second buffer will  
>> silently discard
>>    any changes made in the first.  I would prefer this behavior:  
>> when opening the
>>    second edit source buffer, write any changes in the first buffer  
>> to the
>>    originating Org buffer (but don't save it, of course).
>>
>>    Another approach is to use different buffer names.
>>
>> I think the second idea is better, provided that a mechanism
>> ensures that not two editing instances of the same region
>> are created.  This is what I have implemented now.  Thank
>> you for your report.
>>
>> - Carsten
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Emacs-orgmode mailing list
>> Remember: use `Reply All' to send replies to the list.
>> Emacs-orgmode@gnu.org
>> http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/emacs-orgmode