From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Achim Gratz Subject: Re: Literate Programming - Continue a Source Block? Date: Sun, 12 Jun 2011 10:32:01 +0200 Message-ID: <87mxhn8n7i.fsf@Rainer.invalid> 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> <87oc25mqqq.fsf@Rainer.invalid> <8739jhv4ma.fsf@gmail.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Return-path: Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([140.186.70.92]:60632) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1QVg5m-0003K0-3i for emacs-orgmode@gnu.org; Sun, 12 Jun 2011 04:32:24 -0400 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1QVg5i-0004as-Mv for emacs-orgmode@gnu.org; Sun, 12 Jun 2011 04:32:20 -0400 Received: from lo.gmane.org ([80.91.229.12]:55462) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1QVg5i-0004af-6M for emacs-orgmode@gnu.org; Sun, 12 Jun 2011 04:32:18 -0400 Received: from list by lo.gmane.org with local (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1QVg5f-0005yI-Ag for emacs-orgmode@gnu.org; Sun, 12 Jun 2011 10:32:15 +0200 Received: from p57aab56d.dip.t-dialin.net ([87.170.181.109]) by main.gmane.org with esmtp (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Sun, 12 Jun 2011 10:32:15 +0200 Received: from Stromeko by p57aab56d.dip.t-dialin.net with local (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Sun, 12 Jun 2011 10:32:15 +0200 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@gnu.org Sender: emacs-orgmode-bounces+geo-emacs-orgmode=m.gmane.org@gnu.org To: emacs-orgmode@gnu.org Eric Schulte writes: > I think "append" is just as clear as concatenate, Fair enough, in my mind "append" needs an existing entity, but I guess it could be an empty one. > and collate implies shuffling which is not happening. Well, I was getting ahead of myself... I hope you don't mind me harping on about this. > I'm wary of adding too much duplicate functionality. It is already > possible to organize the tangling of many named code blocks using noweb > reference expansion (a feature which I've used myself on real projects > in the past). This existing method allows for unique block names and > for arbitrary tangling order. The examples presented in this thread pointed out one difficulty with how noweb references currently work, namely that you need to know in advance all block names for finally tangling them and that when adding or removing things you need to remember to keep these references current in potentially many places. > Simplicity is the only reason that the new name-based appending behavior > was implemented, simplicity which (in my opinion) is lost when the user > defines a naming and sorting schema. My general objection is that since you now require that the names be all the same, there is no way to distinguish between those blocks anymore. This will come back to bite you when you then later need to make a distinction since you'll then have to rework everything to unique names again. I consider that sort of simplicity a trap for the unwary. Splitting between a basename and an index extension would instead allow for appending with the basename and still getting at individual blocks using the full name (with the index part). I've had one specific use-case in mind where this would be needed. You'd normally just concatenate all source blocks (let's assume for the moment that the index part is separated from the basename by "::") <> Let's say you have three source blocks and need to point-patch the second one for this run: <> <> <> If the three source blocks are all just named "source", there's no way to do this short of changing their names and all the references that use them. The index part doesn't have to be numeric, it just needs to be orderable. Anyone not using index extensions gets an implicit one by order of appearance, so that wouldn't require any code duplication and you can in this case still say <> Being able to provide custom naming and sorting schemes could be deferred to hook functions the user has to provide, as they will indeed be rarely needed. So an implementation that keeps current behaviour would provide an implicit indexer (by order of appearance), an empty sorter and three selectors (all=append, first last). Anyone who needs more than that has to customize those functions, but I suppose the more common application scenarios will sneak into the baseline sooner or later. The move from implicit to explicit indexing should be supported by providing another hook in the implicit indexer. Regards, Achim. -- +<[Q+ Matrix-12 WAVE#46+305 Neuron microQkb Andromeda XTk Blofeld]>+ Factory and User Sound Singles for Waldorf Blofeld: http://Synth.Stromeko.net/Downloads.html#WaldorfSounds