From: Eric Schulte <schulte.eric@gmail.com>
To: Achim Gratz <Stromeko@nexgo.de>
Cc: emacs-orgmode@gnu.org
Subject: Re: Literate Programming - Continue a Source Block?
Date: Mon, 13 Jun 2011 15:04:32 -0700 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <87tybtidzy.fsf@gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: 87mxhn8n7i.fsf@Rainer.invalid
Achim Gratz <Stromeko@nexgo.de> writes:
> Eric Schulte <schulte.eric@gmail.com> writes:
>> I think "append" is just as clear as concatenate,
>
> Fair enough, in my mind "append" needs an existing entity, but I guess
> it could be an empty one.
>
>> and collate implies shuffling which is not happening.
>
> Well, I was getting ahead of myself... I hope you don't mind me harping
> on about this.
>
>> I'm wary of adding too much duplicate functionality. It is already
>> possible to organize the tangling of many named code blocks using noweb
>> reference expansion (a feature which I've used myself on real projects
>> in the past). This existing method allows for unique block names and
>> for arbitrary tangling order.
>
> The examples presented in this thread pointed out one difficulty with
> how noweb references currently work, namely that you need to know in
> advance all block names for finally tangling them and that when adding
> or removing things you need to remember to keep these references current
> in potentially many places.
>
>> Simplicity is the only reason that the new name-based appending behavior
>> was implemented, simplicity which (in my opinion) is lost when the user
>> defines a naming and sorting schema.
>
> My general objection is that since you now require that the names be all
> the same, there is no way to distinguish between those blocks anymore.
> This will come back to bite you when you then later need to make a
> distinction since you'll then have to rework everything to unique names
> again. I consider that sort of simplicity a trap for the unwary.
>
> Splitting between a basename and an index extension would instead allow
> for appending with the basename and still getting at individual blocks
> using the full name (with the index part). I've had one specific
> use-case in mind where this would be needed. You'd normally just
> concatenate all source blocks (let's assume for the moment that the
> index part is separated from the basename by "::")
>
> <<source::*>>
>
> Let's say you have three source blocks and need to point-patch the
> second one for this run:
>
> <<source::1>>
> <<source-patch::2>>
> <<source::3>>
>
> If the three source blocks are all just named "source", there's no way
> to do this short of changing their names and all the references that use
> them.
>
> The index part doesn't have to be numeric, it just needs to be
> orderable. Anyone not using index extensions gets an implicit one by
> order of appearance, so that wouldn't require any code duplication and
> you can in this case still say
>
> <<source>>
>
> Being able to provide custom naming and sorting schemes could be
> deferred to hook functions the user has to provide, as they will indeed
> be rarely needed. So an implementation that keeps current behaviour
> would provide an implicit indexer (by order of appearance), an empty
> sorter and three selectors (all=append, first last). Anyone who needs
> more than that has to customize those functions, but I suppose the more
> common application scenarios will sneak into the baseline sooner or
> later. The move from implicit to explicit indexing should be supported
> by providing another hook in the implicit indexer.
>
>
> Regards,
> Achim.
Hi Achim,
Thanks for sharing your thoughts. How would you feel about moving away
from special source block names and moving towards implementing this
behavior with a header argument? Specifically two header arguments
which would both take the name of a named code block, these header
arguments would be as follows
- append :: will append the current code block's body to the named code
block during tangling
- overwrite :: will overwrite the named code block's body with the body
of the current code block
for simple concatenate the value of the append header argument could be
easily set on the file or subtree level.
I feel that for many reasons (most of which have been discussed in
relation to a header argument solution earlier in this thread) such a
solution would be simpler and more consistent with the rest of Babel
than the current name-based solution.
Thoughts? -- Eric
--
Eric Schulte
http://cs.unm.edu/~eschulte/
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2011-06-13 22:05 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 30+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2011-06-08 5:47 Literate Programming - Continue a Source Block? Neeum Zawan
2011-06-08 7:34 ` Sebastien Vauban
2011-06-08 15:20 ` Neeum Zawan
2011-06-08 19:40 ` Eric Schulte
2011-06-08 21:20 ` Neeum Zawan
2011-06-10 4:55 ` Avdi Grimm
2011-06-10 19:09 ` Eric Schulte
2011-06-10 19:27 ` Achim Gratz
2011-06-10 20:00 ` Eric Schulte
2011-06-12 8:32 ` Achim Gratz
2011-06-13 22:04 ` Eric Schulte [this message]
2011-06-14 20:48 ` Achim Gratz
2011-06-15 17:23 ` Eric Schulte
2011-06-15 21:19 ` Achim Gratz
2011-06-16 4:54 ` Eric Schulte
2011-06-16 2:35 ` Neeum Zawan
2011-06-11 1:02 ` Neeum Zawan
2011-06-11 0:44 ` Neeum Zawan
2011-06-11 20:08 ` Eric Schulte
2011-06-12 5:36 ` Neeum Zawan
2011-06-13 21:57 ` Eric Schulte
2011-06-15 5:17 ` Neeum Zawan
2011-06-15 17:27 ` Eric Schulte
2011-06-15 19:37 ` Neeum Zawan
2011-06-16 2:26 ` Eric Schulte
2011-06-17 4:30 ` Neeum Zawan
2011-06-17 4:39 ` Eric Schulte
2011-06-17 7:00 ` Sebastien Vauban
2011-06-19 23:38 ` Neeum Zawan
2011-06-16 10:14 ` Olaf.Hamann
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=87tybtidzy.fsf@gmail.com \
--to=schulte.eric@gmail.com \
--cc=Stromeko@nexgo.de \
--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).