From: Rick Frankel <rick@rickster.com>
To: emacs-orgmode@gnu.org
Subject: Re: evaluation context in call statements
Date: Wed, 26 Jun 2013 10:38:57 -0400 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <64c8a8451434ab3c4fb5d8e73e9b6848@mail.rickster.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <87fvw5fkpt.fsf@Rainer.invalid>
On 2013-06-26 02:29, Achim Gratz wrote:
> Eric Schulte writes:
> In defense of the existing behavior, I don't see the benefit of calling
> a code block with the same arguments from multiple locations and
> subsequently littering a file with multiple identical results blocks.
>
> I agree that this didn't make all that much sense in the past, but with
> property evaluation and elisp argument evaluation now anchored to the
> point of call, the hierarchical position of the call could and (as the
> test case from Rick) will be used to distinguish between invocations
> with the same arguments. Since the current way to find the results
> doesn't know anything about this, it will generally not do the right
> thing anymore. Note that calls using a session had that property all
> the time: multiple calls with the same arguments into the same session
> are useful, but Babel would only keep the last result.
Agreed. The only way to know that the arguments are the "same" is to
evaluated them :).
> My only thought about a :target header argument is that it would need
> to
> be implemented for other types of code blocks as well, which could lead
> to very confusing behavior if we have a named code block with a :target
> header argument which differs from the name.
>
> Oh yes, the specification of that would be interesting. I'll try to
> see
> how this "beam the result anywhere" functionality sprang into existence
> and what the intended use case was (I expect something to do with
> sessions).
I believe the ability to replace named results anywhere was added by
Nicolas in commit 2f2a80fe (quick look at ob-core w/ vc-annotate).
> My current suggestion is however to limit the results block search to
> the same subtree and stop searching at later #+CALL and #+BEGIN_SRC
> line. We could make this conditional on a :[no]clobber argument to
> keep
> compatibility with the current behaviour (clobbering the first result
> would be the current and perhaps default behaviour).
These search bounds make sense, but i think this should be the
default behavior. I don't see the current behavior as making
sense---at least to me. At the time (late 2012) I found Nicolases
changes (named results blocks, attributes and captions on the results
block and not the source, etc) confusing. I still find it odd that you
need to evaluate a source block before you can e.g, add a caption or
attributes to the results (previous behavior was that header arguments
on the source block were used for the results in exporting.)
Also, i think a new value for :replace ("original"?) would make more
sense than a new :clobber option.
> My vote is for adding #+name support to call lines, and then handling
> their results in the same manner as code block results.
>
> I'm not sure what this would entail other than replacing the call with
> its arguments with the name of the call in the results line. But yes,
> that'd be a step forward, although you'd have to be careful when
> copying
> calls.
It seems inconsistent to add #+name support to call lines but not the
other
block modifiers (#+header :var ..., etc). I think call lines are a
special case, so would be ok with the new :target option.
rick
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2013-06-26 14:39 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 27+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2013-06-25 17:34 evaluation context in call statements Rick Frankel
2013-06-25 19:21 ` Achim Gratz
2013-06-25 19:53 ` Achim Gratz
2013-06-25 20:06 ` Achim Gratz
2013-06-25 20:07 ` Michael Brand
2013-06-25 20:20 ` Achim Gratz
2013-06-25 20:55 ` Achim Gratz
2013-06-25 22:41 ` Eric Schulte
2013-06-26 6:29 ` Achim Gratz
2013-06-26 14:38 ` Rick Frankel [this message]
2013-06-26 15:13 ` Nicolas Goaziou
2013-06-26 15:29 ` Rick Frankel
2013-06-26 15:49 ` Eric Schulte
2013-06-26 15:06 ` Eric Schulte
2013-06-27 4:55 ` Achim Gratz
2013-06-27 6:22 ` Andreas Leha
2013-06-27 14:27 ` Achim Gratz
2013-06-27 23:12 ` Andreas Leha
2013-06-30 22:24 ` Eric Schulte
2013-07-01 10:23 ` Michael Brand
2013-07-01 13:11 ` Eric Schulte
2013-07-01 13:52 ` Michael Brand
2013-07-01 14:10 ` Eric Schulte
2013-06-26 8:38 ` Michael Brand
2013-06-26 14:54 ` Eric Schulte
2013-06-26 16:53 ` Michael Brand
2013-06-26 17:11 ` Eric Schulte
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
List information: https://www.orgmode.org/
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=64c8a8451434ab3c4fb5d8e73e9b6848@mail.rickster.com \
--to=rick@rickster.com \
--cc=emacs-orgmode@gnu.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
Code repositories for project(s) associated with this public inbox
https://git.savannah.gnu.org/cgit/emacs/org-mode.git
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for read-only IMAP folder(s) and NNTP newsgroup(s).