From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: "Sebastien Vauban" Subject: Re: Literate Programming - Continue a Source Block? Date: Fri, 17 Jun 2011 09:00:33 +0200 Message-ID: <80mxhhndri.fsf@somewhere.org> References: <87pqmokh6d.fsf@fester.com> <80k4cw22uf.fsf@somewhere.org> <87fwnkjqoh.fsf@fester.com> <87mxhsnmcf.fsf@gmail.com> <877h8wj9za.fsf@fester.com> <877h8tv6yh.fsf@gmail.com> <87fwnhgps2.fsf@fester.com> <871uz0m8q9.fsf@gmail.com> <87oc238vby.fsf@fester.com> <87zkllie03.fsf@gmail.com> <871uyv7jxm.fsf@fester.com> <871uyvuhqy.fsf@gmail.com> <87wrgm6g3a.fsf@fester.com> <87hb7qcr3z.fsf@gmail.com> <878vt15bc8.fsf@fester.com> <87hb7pxe92.fsf@gmail.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Return-path: List-Id: "General discussions about Org-mode." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: emacs-orgmode-bounces+geo-emacs-orgmode=m.gmane.org-mXXj517/zsQ@public.gmane.org Sender: emacs-orgmode-bounces+geo-emacs-orgmode=m.gmane.org-mXXj517/zsQ@public.gmane.org To: emacs-orgmode-mXXj517/zsQ@public.gmane.org Hi Eric and Neeum, Eric Schulte wrote: >> Overwriting is still not supported, but I don't know if that's all that >> important (I don't have an immediate need for it). And noweb by default >> did not have it either, so perhaps it's not needed for most tasks > > This was my thinking. > >> (OTOH, you may want to think about what the best solution is if later >> on you decide to add overwriting capability). > > If someone finds a real need for overwriting code blocks, hopefully the > specifics of their need will point towards an implementation. The only case that pops up to my mind now, of such a use case where overwriting could be "needed" (well, let's say useful) is for some pedagogical document that one would write, where code is constructed from a simplistic (and buggy) approach to a correct one. One could say: the code to do that is this one, and show the block contents. Then, discover problems to it, explain them in the document, and make a new version of the block with the same name (for tangling reasons). Then, highlight some limitations of the new code, fix them in a new block with the same name, etc. Does that mean it needs to be implemented? Up to you... Best regards, Seb -- Sebastien Vauban