transclusion, tangling, flycheck/flymake, etc.

[Greg Minshall <minshall@umich.edu>]

Ihor,

(Noboru Ota -- i do find transclusion very interesting.)

> 2. A much faster tangle system. If we can directly transclude and sync
>    contents of source blocks with actual programming language buffer,
>    C-c ' can trivially support flycheck-mode and provide a more
>    IDE-like experience while still benefiting from literate
>    programming style.

in general, i would like to keep bits of my code in a single .org file,
maybe broken into separate source blocks, with preceding/succeeding
commentary.  then, pulled together in a tangle by a =:tangle= property
(within a subtree) and/or =<<noweb>>= references.

my thought about flycheck, flymake, whatever, is that (optionally) a
silent, background, =tangle= and/or =<<noweb>> expansion= would take
place to produce a "full source file buffer"[*], then the narrowed
version of that (corresponding to the part where =C-c '= was issued)
buffer is presented for the user's editing convenience.

your thought here, iiuc, is that source files would live in the file
system, and be transcluded into the .org file.  i can see the utility of
that.  but, i would miss =<<noweb>>= and also the ability to break the
source code into small chunks for purposes of documentation.

obviously, the two approaches are not mutually exclusive.  but, partly
to make sure i understand your suggestion, i thought i'd mention it.

cheers, Greg

[*] in my scenario, i would find it convenient for the buffer the user
edits to have a file name, with the tangled file's extension; i have a
'package-in-waiting' which has to do some head standing to figure out
the appropriate language [parser] to send to a program =prettier=.

https://git.sr.ht/~minshall/prettied-diff