Eric Schulte writes: > Charles Berry writes: > >> John Hendy 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. Rainer > >> >> Best, >> >> Chuck >> >> -- Rainer M. Krug email: Rainerkrugsde PGP: 0x0F52F982