Re: [ANN] Org-babel integrated into Org-mode

["Štěpán Němec" <stepnem@gmail.com>]

Carsten Dominik <carsten.dominik@gmail.com> writes:

> On Jun 26, 2010, at 6:30 PM, Štěpán Němec wrote:
>
>> "Eric Schulte" <schulte.eric@gmail.com> writes:
>>
>>> Štěpán Němec <stepnem@gmail.com> writes:
>>>
>>> [...]
>>>>
>>>> How come some of your rewrites above still use the `org-babel-' 
>>>> prefix?
>>>> (As a side note, I don't see what Emacs guidelines suggest `ob-' 
>>>> is more
>>>> appropriate than `org-babel-', and I would personally prefer to retain
>>>> the latter -- it's much more descriptive.)
>>>>
>>>>    Štěpán
>>>>
>>>
>>> Hi Štěpán,
>>>
>>> The guidelines I mentioned (I believe) specify that all file names for
>>> emacs-lisp files which are part of Emacs must be unique in the first 6
>>> or so characters.  This is why all "(require 'ob-*)" lines (which must
>>> correspond to file names) now use ob-* instead of org-babel-*.  Since I
>>> (like you) prefer the org-babel-* prefixes, those have been retained for
>>> all function and variable names.
>>
>> I see. Hm... could you provide some source for that? The only
>> restriction on file names I can recall is this section from Appendix D
>> of the Emacs Lisp Reference Manual:
>>
>>   * Please keep the names of your Emacs Lisp source files to 13
>>     characters or less.  This way, if the files are compiled, the
>>     compiled files' names will be 14 characters or less, which is
>>     short enough to fit on all kinds of Unix systems.
>
> This is a restriction from the compiler.
>
> However, Emacs wants to be installable on many systems, including MS-
> DOS, which has only 8+3 character file names.  Therefore, Emacs requires that
> the names are unique in the first 8 letters - they may  be longer than 8, but
> they must be unique when shortened.
>
> I cannot find the reference now, but I did explicitly ask a short while ago
> and got this confirmed by Stefan Monnier.

Ah, right, I remember that, yes. MS-DOG strikes again.

>> Is that perhaps what you meant? In any case, I see that the
>> recommendation I quote above would make the file renaming necessary,
>> too.
>>
>> (Also, I believe you actually did mention renaming *functions*, which
>> created my confusion in the first place -- cf. the commit message of
>> e0e4d76094f26 for example.)
>>
>>> Hope this explains it, I'm certainly open to other naming suggestions.
>>
>> It would make a lot of sense to at least still begin the file names with
>> `org' IMHO, if at all possible.
>
> This will not solve the problem, I fear.

Indeed. In this light `ob-' looks more like "as good as it gets".


Štěpán