Eric Schulte <schulte.eric@gmail.com> writes:

> Rainer M Krug <Rainer@krugs.de> writes:
>
>> Eric Schulte <schulte.eric@gmail.com> writes:
>>
>>> Charles Berry <ccberry@ucsd.edu> writes:
>>>
>>>> John Hendy <jw.hendy <at> gmail.com> writes:
>>>>
>>>> [deleted]
>>>>> >
>>>>> > I think the default behavior should be reverted, as tangling and
>>>>> > exporting are two different things. When I tangle, I want to see the
>>>>> > code blocks as they are in the org document (with possible variables and
>>>>> > expansions) but not to create files where I do not put it explicitly
>>>>> > into a code block. These wrappers have nothing to do with the code, and
>>>>> > are only there for the exported engine. So I would either revert to the
>>>>> > original behavior, or, introduce a new header argument,
>>>>> > e.g. :include-wrappers, which would, if set to t, include the export
>>>>> > wrappers in the tangled file. This might be useful for debugging
>>>>> > exporting of code block results, but not for general tangling.
>>>>> 
>>>>> Thanks for chiming in. This was my gut reaction to the default
>>>>> behavior. I guess we're still only a sample size of 2, but
>>>>> intuitively, I would think that tangling would be a separate beast in
>>>>> most cases from exporting. Just to have it on the record, if I tangle,
>>>>> it's usually to take the code I've used in something like a Beamer
>>>>> presentation or document and combine it into a single .R file so
>>>>> someone can run it without needing Org-mode.
>>>>
>>>> [deleted]
>>>>
>>>> Sorry to be late to add my $0.02...
>>>>
>>>> I never want the try/catch wrappers.
>>>>
>>>> But noweb is indispensable.
>>>>
>>>> I use noweb a lot to organize and collect blocks. In some cases, I export
>>>> them and in others I just tangle them.
>>>>
>>>> I hope that the revised code will allow me to turn off try/catch wrapping
>>>> and still be able to use noweb when tangling or exporting.
>>>>
>>>
>>> In addition to noweb, there are cases where variable expansion is useful
>>> in tangled code.
>>>
>>> The simplest option is to move things like try/catch blocks out of the
>>> code block expansion function, and into the execution function.  Then if
>>> other language present similar constructs (which we want to add to
>>> execution by default but never want to tangle), we can think about
>>> abstracting this out into some new level of code block expansion.
>>>
>>> Thoughts?
>>
>> Makes perfect sense to me, and would definitely be the better place to
>> add them.
>>
>> If one wants enclosing code in the tangling, there is always
>> the :epilogue and :prologue header arguments, and the try/catch should
>> be considered as internal to the execution.
>>
>
> Great, how's this patch work?  If it looks good I'll apply it.

Git still puzzles me a lot... If you tell me how I can apply this patch
(from emacs?) I will try it out.

Thanks,

Rainer

>
> Thanks,

-- 
Rainer M. Krug
email: Rainer<at>krugs<dot>de
PGP: 0x0F52F982