Re: Org babel with multiple linked segments of source code

["Eric Schulte" <schulte.eric@gmail.com>]

Nicholas Patrick <npatrick04@gmail.com> writes:

> I may try playing around with the sequential sections...since that's how I'm
> currently writing the majority of this file.  Most of the pieces of code are
> simply defining functions that call other functions or macros and wouldn't
> be executed alone.  However, I'm defining other blocks as tests for the
> functional sections.  So I might do the following:
>

Maybe you could try either putting all of your functional definitions
into a single large code block, or you could write all of your functions
in their own named code blocks

#+source: foo1
#+begin_src emacs-lisp
  (deufn foo1 () :foo1)
#+end_src

#+source: foo2
#+begin_src emacs-lisp
  (deufn foo1 () :foo2)
#+end_src

and then use a single "functional-definitions" code block to collect all
of these functional definitions

#+source: functional-definitions
#+begin_src emacs-lisp
  <<foo1>>
  <<foo2>>
#+end_src

this single code block could then be easily included in other code
blocks.

#+begin_src emacs-lisp
  <<functional-definitions>>
  (def xyz (f1 (f2 foo))) ; produces bar
#+end_src

#+results:
: bar

I know this isn't exactly what you were after, but it does work under
the current system.  I'd be interested to hear if other LP systems have
something analogous to a "concatenate" function...

Best -- Eric

>
> #+source: functional-definitions
> #+begin_src emacs-lisp
> (defn f1
> #+end_src
>
> #+source: functional-definitions
> #+begin_src emacs-lisp
> (defn f2
> #+end_src
>
> #+begin_src emacs-lisp
> <<functional-definitions>>
> (def xyz (f1 (f2 foo))) ; produces bar
> #+end_src
>
> #+results:
> | bar |
>
> I'm still pretty new to using babel, so I haven't figured out much other
> than the basic tangling capability.  Maybe my example could be accomplished
> with something like a ':concatenate yes' option on the
> functional-definitions blocks.
>
> On Tue, Mar 22, 2011 at 9:57 PM, Eric Schulte <schulte.eric@gmail.com>wrote:
>
>> Hi,
>>
>> The setup you suggest below is not currently supported.  I fear
>> implementing such a system could have some odd semantic extensions into
>> other parts of Org-mode code blocks, for example, would it then make
>> sense for the results of a code block to be collected over all code
>> blocks with that name?  For example,
>>
>> #+source: test2
>> #+begin_src emacs-lisp
>>  1
>> #+end_src
>>
>> #+source: test2
>> #+begin_src emacs-lisp
>>  2
>> #+end_src
>>
>> #+begin_src emacs-lisp :var data=test2
>>  data
>> #+end_src
>>
>> #+results:
>> | 1 | 2 |
>>
>> Maybe, but this is certainly not possible under the current setup.
>>
>> Anyways, back to your use case, maybe it would be equally convenient to
>> simply have a number of sequential code blocks in the Org-mode file all
>> tangle out, as they will be placed in the tangled file in the order they
>> appear in the Org-mode file, so your example below could be changed
>> to...
>>
>> ** tangling example
>>   :PROPERTIES:
>>    :tangle:   test1.clj
>>   :exports:  none
>>    :END:
>>
>> #+begin_src clojure
>>  blah
>> #+end_src
>>
>> #+begin_src clojure
>>  foo
>> #+end_src
>>
>> #+begin_src clojure
>>  bar
>> #+end_src
>>
>> #+begin_src clojure
>>  blah
>> #+end_src
>>
>> While not the same as what you suggested this may be sufficient.
>>
>> Best -- Eric
>>
>> Nicholas Patrick <npatrick04@gmail.com> writes:
>>
>> > I'm trying to figure out how to minimize the overhead with using babel to
>> > write some segments of code.  I find myself writing short segments of a
>> set
>> > of functionality, then writing a collector source block which is referred
>> to
>> > later on in the code... e.g.
>> >
>> > *********************
>> > #+srcname: test1
>> > #+begin_src clojure :tangle test1.clj :exports none :noweb yes
>> > blah
>> > <<test2>>
>> > blah
>> > #+end_src
>> >
>> > #+srcname: test2
>> > #+begin_src clojure
>> > foo
>> > #+end_src
>> >
>> > #+srcname: test2
>> > #+begin_src clojure
>> > bar
>> > #+end_src
>> > *********************
>> > I'd like to see
>> > blah
>> > foo
>> > bar
>> > blah
>> >
>> > but I see
>> > blah
>> > foo
>> > blah
>> >
>> > What I'd like to see is a single srcname for the code that just
>> concatenates
>> > the two different sections when it is referred by <<descriptive-name>>.
>> > That way I don't have to come up with different names and collectors and
>> so
>> > on and so forth.  Maybe I'm just not doing "literate programming" right,
>> but
>> > when I'm hacking stuff together, I'd like to minimize the housekeeping.
>> > e.g.
>> >
>> > Is there a way to do this?
>>
>>