Re: Mark and Tangle

From: Dan Davison <davison@stats.ox.ac.uk>
To: Jambunathan K <kjambunathan@gmail.com>
Cc: emacs-orgmode@gnu.org
Subject: Re: Mark and Tangle
Date: Wed, 08 Sep 2010 09:57:35 -0400	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <87k4mwbank.fsf@stats.ox.ac.uk> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <81sk1kykv0.fsf@gmail.com> (Jambunathan K.'s message of "Wed, 08 Sep 2010 08:30:47 +0530")

Jambunathan K <kjambunathan@gmail.com> writes:

> Let me explain what I mean by selective tangling (or any one of the
> other babel operations)

>
> I mark subtrees [1]. The nearest Org equivalent would be to create a
> sparse tree with say a tag match and consider the visible portions as
> selected or marked.

Hi Jambunathan,

Org-mode has an established mechanism for selective export, which uses
tags

http://orgmode.org/manual/Selective-export.html#Selective-export

I think this could be viewed as an Org version of "marking
subtrees". Perhaps selective tangling should be implemented in an
analogous fashion?  (so that it happens automatically, without requiring
obscure lisp forms in babel header args).

Dan

>
> Then babel could choose to act on just the visible portion [2] as
> opposed to the whole buffer (both visible and invisible).

>
> It would be the responsibility of the user to make sure that visible
> portions of the buffer form a coherent whole and babel's results
> pipeline is not entirely broken.
>
> Needless to say, selective 'babeling' is more expressive than 'babeling'
> based on language or a set of languages or just a subtree. This is
> because it could capture a user's complete workflow and editing
> environment.
>
> I believe the above request is consistent with org's way of doing
> things [3]. 
>
> As for the thread that you reference, I believe the solution is a bit
> 'nerdy' (if I may use the word) and relies on advanced knowledge (for
> example, org's tagging apis, programming in elisp and fact that babel
> plists could indeed be lisp forms) 
>
> Footnotes:
>
> [1] Marking as in emacs sense of the word. Think marking buffers,
> marking gnus articles etc for later bulk action.
>
> [2] That is, org-babel-do would hence forward take an additional
> visibility-ok arguments. 
>
> - Visibility need not be just that of a subtree but of any structural
>   element.
>
> - Modification of buffer due to insertion of #+results elements and
>   their visibility could slightly complicate the implementation.
>
> [3] As of today, I do consider babel's workflow (as a literate
> programming environment) is orthogonal to Org's world view. Now that
> babel is a first class entity within org-mode and emacs there is a
> strong reason why this orthogonality should continue to be exist. 
>
> Just my few cents here.
>
> Jambunathan K.
>
> "Eric Schulte" <schulte.eric@gmail.com> writes:
>
>> I'm not sure if this exactly fits your needs, but see this recent
>> related thread.
>>
>> this >>
>> Best -- Eric
>>
>> Jambunathan K <kjambunathan@gmail.com> writes:
>>
>>> If there is support for marking (unmarking) headlines in org file it
>>> could be quite useful.
>>>
>>> For example, selective tangling.
>>>
>>> Jambunathan K.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Emacs-orgmode mailing list
>>> Please use `Reply All' to send replies to the list.
>>> Emacs-orgmode@gnu.org
>>> http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/emacs-orgmode
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Emacs-orgmode mailing list
>> Please use `Reply All' to send replies to the list.
>> Emacs-orgmode@gnu.org
>> http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/emacs-orgmode
>
> _______________________________________________
> Emacs-orgmode mailing list
> Please use `Reply All' to send replies to the list.
> Emacs-orgmode@gnu.org
> http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/emacs-orgmode