Re: [RFC] Standardized code block keywords

["Sebastien Vauban" <wxhgmqzgwmuf-geNee64TY+gS+FvcfC7Uqw@public.gmane.org>]

Hi Eric,

Eric Schulte wrote:
>> Now, between "srcname" and "source": I'm used to whatever my Yasnippet is
>> entering for me. That's currently "srcname". I don't have a strong opinion,
>> though, to choose one over the other, except that I like Nick's argument with
>> the table analogy.
>>
>>> I agree on [2] "call".
>>
>> I clearly agree on "call" as well.
>
> noted, thanks

I think you'll get unanimity on that one.

>> Here, I'd like to ask: what about "sbe"?  In my own understanding, it's a
>> call, absolutely similar to "call". Is there a technical reason to be forced
>> to differentiate both?  If no, can we use "call" as well instead of "sbe"?
>
> The only difference is that sbe is a function name, and to name a
> function call (a function which will take up that term in the entire
> Emacs-lisp namespace across all applications) seems somewhat pushy.

OK. Point understood. May I suggest to try to find a better name, still?  Once
we're at it, modifying one extra line in the documentation won't hurt.

I don't know what others find, but I've never understood what it meant. OK,
now (since yesterday, in fact), I know it means "source block evaluation", but
that's not really intuitive.

I'd opt for "ob-call" (package name + "call") or something like that, if I
could choose.

>>> I'm confused by [3] so I will say nothing for now, except to ask some
>>> questions: are we talking about what a human would use to label a piece of
>>> data for consumption by a block (including perhaps the future possibilities
>>> of lists and paragraphs that Tom brought up)? what babel would use to label
>>> a results block (possibly so that it could be consumed by another block in a
>>> chain)? both? would that mean that #+tblname would go the way of the dodo
>>> and that tables would be labelled with #+data (or #+object or whatever else
>>> we come up with)?
>>
>> For point 3, Eric, I guess that whichever term is chosen, that does not mean
>> that "results" will change (I mean: when it's a result of a block execution)?

I was expecting you'd always keep "results" for auto-inserted results (after a
code block evaluation). But it makes sense to prefer the one term that will
win.

> I would be happy for results to change to data or tblname (if a table)
> or whatever else is selected.

OK, clear.

>> In other words, if we choose for "object", we still will have the possibility
>> to use "results" (automatically generated) and "object" to refer to something
>> we want to use in another call?
>>
>>>>>                 named data [3] -- "tblname" "resname" "results" "data"
>>
>> I don't specifically like "resname".
>>
>> I would keep "results" for automatically generated "results".
>>
>> I do like "data", but can learn to like "object" as a more generic term,
>> future-proof for coming extensions.
>
> I'll mark you down as undecided for this term. :)

Yep!  I'm open to any suggestion you'll make.

>> Last remark: we could get one step further and wonder if it wouldn't be good
>> to impose a single way to pass variables? We currently have two different
>> mechanisms:
>>
>>     #+srcname: convert-date-to-French-format
>>     #+begin_src sql :var column=""
>>     CONVERT(varchar(10), $column, 103) AS $column
>>     #+end_src
>>
>> and
>>
>>     #+srcname: convert-date-to-French-format(column="")
>>     #+begin_src sql
>>     CONVERT(varchar(10), $column, 103) AS $column
>>     #+end_src
>>
>> I guess that the first one is easier if we want to construct complex variable
>> values (which call Emacs Lisp code or such), but...
>
> I don't feel that this example causes as much confusion, but if I'm
> wrong I am open to change on this front.  Although the only possible
> change here would be to remove the second option as the first method of
> specifying variables is central to code block management.

Just that I remember both syntaxes weren't handled the same way for error
reporting (remember, when there is no default value: in one case, you can get
the name of the faulty block; in the other, not), and that makes me think is
not as simple as an alias. Hence, your Babel code is or can become different
just because there are different alternatives to write certain things down.

Then, as a user, I always wonder what's the best one?  "For a good error
reporting (with the name of the code block being outputted), which one do I
have to use?" and such questions...

If we only have one way, we can be sure everybody experiences the same things
with the same semantical input.

Another point, that may or may not have much to do with this, is that I don't
have anymore the source name exported in HTML -- dunno when it disappeared,
though. I remember that, at some point, it was due to having, or not, a
default value (at the time, having no default value was still allowed), but
now, even with the default values for every var, I miss those names in the
HTML (for literate programming support, it is quite useful to be able to see
the name of the block along with the code).

I repeat myself, but thanks, once again, for tackling this naming "problem".

Best regards,
  Seb

-- 
Sebastien Vauban