From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Neeum Zawan Subject: Re: Literate Programming - Continue a Source Block? Date: Wed, 15 Jun 2011 12:37:45 -0700 Message-ID: <87wrgm6g3a.fsf@fester.com> References: <87pqmokh6d.fsf@fester.com> <80k4cw22uf.fsf@somewhere.org> <87fwnkjqoh.fsf@fester.com> <87mxhsnmcf.fsf@gmail.com> <877h8wj9za.fsf@fester.com> <877h8tv6yh.fsf@gmail.com> <87fwnhgps2.fsf@fester.com> <871uz0m8q9.fsf@gmail.com> <87oc238vby.fsf@fester.com> <87zkllie03.fsf@gmail.com> <871uyv7jxm.fsf@fester.com> <871uyvuhqy.fsf@gmail.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Return-path: Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([140.186.70.92]:38001) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1QWvry-0004Sv-ID for emacs-orgmode@gnu.org; Wed, 15 Jun 2011 15:35:19 -0400 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1QWvrx-0004kv-23 for emacs-orgmode@gnu.org; Wed, 15 Jun 2011 15:35:18 -0400 Received: from lo.gmane.org ([80.91.229.12]:60815) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1QWvrw-0004ki-L5 for emacs-orgmode@gnu.org; Wed, 15 Jun 2011 15:35:16 -0400 Received: from list by lo.gmane.org with local (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1QWvrr-0007tw-Tz for emacs-orgmode@gnu.org; Wed, 15 Jun 2011 21:35:11 +0200 Received: from c-71-237-233-41.hsd1.or.comcast.net ([71.237.233.41]) by main.gmane.org with esmtp (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Wed, 15 Jun 2011 21:35:11 +0200 Received: from mailinglists by c-71-237-233-41.hsd1.or.comcast.net with local (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Wed, 15 Jun 2011 21:35:11 +0200 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: emacs-orgmode@gnu.org Eric Schulte writes: > It would be possible to also implement the concatenation behavior during > noweb expansion, however I'd prefer to first wait for a response to my > recent other email to this thread asking for a more clear explication of > existing noweb behavior. > > The only remaining times when such concatenation behavior could be > implemented would be during block reference expansion, and during block > evaluation, but I think expanding at those times would be unnecessary > and confusing. I'm having trouble understanding the difference between what you discuss in the first paragraph and in the second. What's the difference between noweb expansion and block reference expansion? As for actual noweb behavior, I don't really know - will have to play with it and let you know...