From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Eric Schulte Subject: Re: [PATCH] * lisp/ob-core.el (org-babel-execute-src-block): insert hash for silent results Date: Thu, 14 Mar 2013 13:52:14 -0600 Message-ID: <87vc8tda9e.fsf@gmail.com> References: <1362542863-25992-1-git-send-email-aaronecay@gmail.com> <87obetsgma.fsf@Rainer.invalid> <877glhsfus.fsf@gmail.com> <87k3phs84b.fsf@Rainer.invalid> <87ip50qv36.fsf@gmail.com> <87y5dvocw5.fsf@Rainer.invalid> <87mwu8aqf2.fsf@gmail.com> <874ngfe4sx.fsf@gmail.com> <87a9q7nolz.fsf@Rainer.invalid> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Return-path: Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([208.118.235.92]:58752) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1UGEIH-00013q-Vh for emacs-orgmode@gnu.org; Thu, 14 Mar 2013 15:58:36 -0400 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1UGEIB-0005po-Lz for emacs-orgmode@gnu.org; Thu, 14 Mar 2013 15:58:29 -0400 Received: from mail-pb0-f52.google.com ([209.85.160.52]:58363) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1UGEIB-0005pk-Cr for emacs-orgmode@gnu.org; Thu, 14 Mar 2013 15:58:23 -0400 Received: by mail-pb0-f52.google.com with SMTP id ma3so2716565pbc.39 for ; Thu, 14 Mar 2013 12:58:22 -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: >> From re-looking at Achim's previous noweb example, it seems that we >> currently do *not* include the values of noweb expansions in code block >> hash calculations, I think this is a bug which should be fixed. > > It could very well have been a conscious decision, given that this can > lead to exponential complexity (I guess it's too late to ask Dan Davison > about that). That's why I said we need to clarify what we want this to > do first and then see how we implement it. > I do think that the noweb expanded body should be used in code block hashing. This is not very different from the expansion of included :var header arguments before hashing takes place. Cheers, > > > Regards, > Achim. -- Eric Schulte http://cs.unm.edu/~eschulte