Re: refine org-babel-tangle-jump-to-org?

[Eric Schulte <schulte.eric@gmail.com>]

Rainer@krugs.de (Rainer M. Krug) writes:

> Eric Schulte <schulte.eric@gmail.com> writes:
>
>> Rainer@krugs.de (Rainer M. Krug) writes:
>>
>>> Hi
>>>
>>> I am using  org-babel-tangle-jump-to-org when debugging code written in
>>> org and tangled. I have some longisch code blocks and it is always
>>> irritating, as it only jumps to the codde block. Would it be possible to
>>> extend the function, that it jumps to the line of the code?
>>> That would make this funktion much more user friendly.
>>>
>>
>> I've just pushed up a change which should make this change.  I tested
>> this against the example.C file tangled from the attached Org-mode file.
>
> Thanks - works much better now.
> Very nice - it jumps even to the location in an indirect buffer -
> perfect.
>
> Without trying to be a perfectionist, it is in most cases between one
> and three lines off.
>
> Is this only in y case? If yes, please let me know and I can send you an
> org file privately.
>

Please do send me a minimal example.  In my simple tests it was landing
on the same character as in the source code file.

>
> It would be really nice, if it would be possible to put the cursor on
> the same line, preferably same character? But it is definitely usable
> like this for debugging.
>
>>
>> * example
>>   :PROPERTIES:
>>   :tangle:   yes
>>   :comments: link
>>   :END:
>>
>> The required headers.
>> #+name: header
>> #+begin_src C
>>   #include <stdio.h>
>> #+end_src
>>
>> Here is the auxiliary function.
>> #+name: auxiliary
>> #+begin_src C
>>   void aux(char* arg){
>>     printf("first argument: %s\n", arg);
>>   }
>> #+end_src
>>
>> Here is the main function.
>> #+name: main
>> #+begin_src C
>>   int main(int argc, char *argv[])
>>   {
>>     aux(argv[1]);
>>     return 0;
>>   }
>> #+end_src
>>
>>
>> While implementing this change I did notice that this jumping
>> functionality only appears to work with linked code blocks, 
>
> linked code blocks? Do you mean the header argument :comments link or,
> as I use :comments yes? If I remember correctly, when you announced this
> function, you explicitly mentioned that :comments yes is required for it
> to work?
>

I meant to type "named code blocks", but yes you want to use ":comments
link", as I use in that example.  See the manual page for the comments
header argument for more details.

Cheers,

>
>
> Thanks a lot,
>
> Rainer
>
>>which should
>> I believe is a bug.
>>
>> Best,
>>
>>>
>>> Thanks,
>>>
>>> Rainer

-- 
Eric Schulte
http://cs.unm.edu/~eschulte