From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Eric Schulte Subject: Re: [PATCH 07/10] Simplify org-babel-execute-src-block Date: Wed, 03 Apr 2013 11:20:29 -0600 Message-ID: <87obdvv7o1.fsf@gmail.com> References: <1364794944-13826-1-git-send-email-aaronecay@gmail.com> <1364794944-13826-8-git-send-email-aaronecay@gmail.com> <878v50u3dl.fsf@Rainer.invalid> <87vc83y79x.fsf@gmail.com> <874nfnczoi.fsf@Rainer.invalid> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Return-path: Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([208.118.235.92]:48692) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1UNRbZ-00032q-Vs for emacs-orgmode@gnu.org; Wed, 03 Apr 2013 13:36:15 -0400 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1UNRbV-0000qX-Q0 for emacs-orgmode@gnu.org; Wed, 03 Apr 2013 13:36:13 -0400 Received: from mail-pd0-f178.google.com ([209.85.192.178]:50795) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1UNRbP-0000oW-Q7 for emacs-orgmode@gnu.org; Wed, 03 Apr 2013 13:36:09 -0400 Received: by mail-pd0-f178.google.com with SMTP id w11so971615pde.37 for ; Wed, 03 Apr 2013 10:36:03 -0700 (PDT) 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: Achim Gratz Cc: emacs-orgmode@gnu.org Achim Gratz writes: > Eric Schulte writes: >> Can you check if this change causes any of the existing tests to fail? > > I don't think there is a test for that, at least I don't remember > anything in that direction. However when implementing my earlier change > w.r.t. confirmation I noticed that merging the parameters early has > potential for triggering execution of source blocks that would otherwise > lay dormant until the execution of the current block was already > confirmed. As I said, I have no idea if this behaviour is intended, but > that was reason enough for me not to try to "optimize" this away. The > behaviour Aaron tries to implement is maybe more sane, but it does alter > some corner cases and I can't tell how practically relevant this is. > But if we want to change it then I agree that the time is now. > I'm happy with the current implementation, even if it is a couple of lines longer, it has the benefit of having been used in production for a time and proven itself (sufficiently) bug free. So lets discard this patch and stick with the current for now. Thanks, > > > Regards, > Achim. -- Eric Schulte http://cs.unm.edu/~eschulte