From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Dan Davison Subject: Re: [Babel] No output returned if just one command is failing Date: Thu, 02 Dec 2010 18:02:25 +0000 Message-ID: <87sjygf3ym.fsf@gmail.com> References: <80eia1ondv.fsf@missioncriticalit.com> <87r5e1ftxl.fsf@gmail.com> <80sjyhjz0b.fsf@missioncriticalit.com> <87d3pkialo.fsf@gmail.com> <80d3pkuqm8.fsf@missioncriticalit.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Return-path: Received: from [140.186.70.92] (port=33548 helo=eggs.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1PODUP-0006U9-Tg for emacs-orgmode@gnu.org; Thu, 02 Dec 2010 13:02:43 -0500 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1PODUM-00079E-Hh for emacs-orgmode@gnu.org; Thu, 02 Dec 2010 13:02:41 -0500 Received: from plane.gmane.org ([80.91.229.3]:46442) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1PODUM-00078q-Aw for emacs-orgmode@gnu.org; Thu, 02 Dec 2010 13:02:38 -0500 Received: from public by plane.gmane.org with local (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1PODUE-000538-Jb for emacs-orgmode@gnu.org; Thu, 02 Dec 2010 19:02:30 +0100 In-Reply-To: <80d3pkuqm8.fsf@missioncriticalit.com> (=?utf-8?Q?=22S=C3=A9b?= =?utf-8?Q?astien?= Vauban"'s message of "Thu, 02 Dec 2010 16:43:59 +0100") List-Id: "General discussions about Org-mode." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: emacs-orgmode-bounces+geo-emacs-orgmode=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Errors-To: emacs-orgmode-bounces+geo-emacs-orgmode=m.gmane.org@gnu.org To: =?utf-8?Q?S=C3=A9bastien?= Vauban Cc: public-emacs-orgmode-mXXj517/zsQ@plane.gmane.org S=C3=A9bastien Vauban writes: > Hi Eric and Dan, > > Dan Davison wrote: >> S=C3=A9bastien 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 updat= ing >>> the code), >>> 5. export the whole to HTML and/or PDF. >>> >>> The current behavior, even if totally respectable and defendable, inhib= its >>> 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 buf= fer, >>> 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 n= eeded > it yourself. Hey Seb -- you mis-read me there. I was agreeing with you that the behavior should be made available.