Re: [Babel] No output returned if just one command is failing

[Dan Davison <dandavison7@gmail.com>]

Sébastien Vauban <wxhgmqzgwmuf-geNee64TY+gS+FvcfC7Uqw@public.gmane.org>
writes:

> Hi Eric and Dan,
>
> Dan Davison wrote:
>> Sébastien Vauban wrote:
>>> "Eric Schulte" wrote:
>>>> I don't forsee adding partial results insertion both because
>>>>
>>>> - it would add a good deal of complexity to the code to insert results
>>>>   part-way through a run
>>>
>>> I can't comment on this, of course.
>>>
>>>> - the current behavior of only inserting results on a fully successful run
>>>>   is reasonable and is probably more obvious (at least to me) than
>>>>   inserting partial results
>>>
>>> Being fond of Babel, I'm using it always, everywhere. I prefer:
>>>
>>> 1. typing my shell commands in an Org buffer,
>>> 2. evaluate the block,
>>> 3. get the results automagically inserted in the buffer,
>>> 4. (eventually, version the whole file for later comparisons when updating
>>>    the code),
>>> 5. export the whole to HTML and/or PDF.
>>>
>>> The current behavior, even if totally respectable and defendable, inhibits
>>> such a way of working: if you write (or update) a shell code, and don't see
>>> (more or less) the same things as the ones you would see in a shell buffer,
>>> then you can't use such an Org buffer -- as long as one command fails.
>>>
>>> I don't especially want you to change your position, but I'm explaining the
>>> "negative" consequences for me.
>>
>> I definitely have some sympathy with your request. On two occasions I've had
>> to manually make this change just to carry on working.
>>
>> But do we actually change babel in this direction? [...]
>>
>> The thing is that babel currently has a clear, simple, rule which says: if
>> there's an error, the result is the elisp value nil.
>>
>> Eric and I have discussed in the past whether there should be any change
>> in this direction. The idea of a :debug header arg has been floated,
>> that would allow this behavior. Or tacking stdout on to the error
>> output. I tend to think that the behavior you request does need to be
>> made available, somehow, whether by default or not.
>
> If find this conclusion a bit contradictory with the fact that you even needed
> it yourself.

Hey Seb -- you mis-read me there. I was agreeing with you that the
behavior should be made available.