From: Eric Schulte <email@example.com>
To: Org Mode Mailing List <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC] new :post header argument for post-processing of code block results
Date: Wed, 03 Apr 2013 08:30:36 -0600 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <email@example.com> (raw)
Aaron Ecay <firstname.lastname@example.org> writes:
> Hi Eric
> 2013ko martxoak 31an, Eric Schulte-ek idatzi zuen:
>> I've been wanting to add the ability to post-process the results of a
>> code block for some time, and some recent threads (e.g.,  and )
>> could both have benefited from post-processing of code block output.
> This looks very nice!
>> Does this new header argument seem useful? Any suggestions for better
>> syntax which don't add too much conceptual or code complexity?
> See below.
>> @@ -625,6 +626,11 @@ block."
>> (not (listp result)))
>> (list (list result)) result))
>> (funcall cmd body params)))
>> + ;; possibly perform post process provided its appropriate
>> + (when (cdr (assoc :post params))
>> + (let ((*this* result))
>> + (setq result (org-babel-ref-resolve
>> + (cdr (assoc :post params))))))
> What if you did some string surgery on the :post string, to insert
> ",data=\"the result\"" into the call? That way users could just write
> :post add-width(width=5cm), which would be automatically transformed
> into add-width(width=5cm,data="[[graph.png]]") before being passed to
I don't like this idea, because then it becomes "magic" which value is
assigned the result of the current code block, rather than the current
case in which it is very explicit.
> (I guess you’d have to take special care to handle things like ":post
> no-args()" and ":post no-args" properly, stripping the initial comma in
> the first case and adding parens in the second.)
> This requires that all :post code blocks take a data
> argument, but I don’t think that’s more onerous than stipulating the
> *this* variable at the lisp level.
I think it is more onerous, I also think it reduces flexibility (the
writing of the called block needs to know exactly which argument will
want to be set by later code blocks).
> Also, I’m unclear on whether elisp is supported
Yes it is
> (or should be)
> . Do we want to allow ":post (message *this*)"?
If your issue is that (identity *this*) is cumbersome, then I would
agree. What about if we change `org-babel-read' as with the attached
patch s.t. *any* variable with ear-muffs will be read as Emacs Lisp,
allowing this simpler alternative.
#+begin_src sh :input="" :results verbatim
#+begin_src sh :post val-wrap(input=*this*)
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2013-04-03 15:16 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 11+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2013-04-01 1:17 [RFC] new :post header argument for post-processing of code block results Eric Schulte
2013-04-01 5:30 ` Aaron Ecay
2013-04-03 14:30 ` Eric Schulte [this message]
2013-04-04 2:18 ` Eric Schulte
2013-04-04 9:54 ` Bastien
2013-04-04 12:47 ` Eric Schulte
2013-04-04 12:54 ` Bastien
2014-12-12 16:37 ` Christian Nybø
2013-04-16 12:47 ` Eric S Fraga
2013-04-16 15:23 ` Eric Schulte
2013-04-16 20:42 ` Andreas Leha
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:
List information: https://www.orgmode.org/
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
* 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
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).