I've included new versions of both patches with most of the changes you suggested. I guess you'll apply the longer one when you've been notified by the FSF? Is this a one-time deal that covers future patches or do I have to do this with every patch that's over 15 lines long? Thanks! -deech On Sat, Sep 14, 2013 at 10:53 AM, aditya siram wrote: > Thanks for your feedback and your work on org-babel! > > Oops, the maintain-point was a hold-over and isn't actually used in the > code. I'll remove it. > > I will incorporate your suggestions. > > However, regarding the cascading if statements, how would I use `cond` > when the predicates are `and`ed and when I need different behavior in the > else cases? > > > On Sat, Sep 14, 2013 at 10:44 AM, Eric Schulte wrote: > >> aditya siram writes: >> >> > Attached is a patch that fixes a bug with jumping from source block >> back to >> > the Org file. The problem is that the current detangling behavior does >> not >> > take the :padlline flag into account. This stopped. >> > >> > Hopefully this is helpful to others ... >> > -deech >> > >> >> Hi deech, >> >> Please see the Org-mode contribution instructions at [1]. A patch of >> this length would require that you fill out the FSF copyright assignment >> paperwork before the patch could be applied. >> >> As for the content of the patch, my only question is why do you add an >> optional maintain-point argument to `org-babel-tangle-jump-to-org'? Is >> there ever a case when you would not want to maintain the point? >> >> Of much less importance I have a couple of stylistic notes about the >> code which are largely unrelated to its functionality and are included >> to make future changes easier to read and because I'm a cranky old lisp >> programmer. >> >> - you should indent the code s.t. no lines are longer than 79 characters >> - comments which float after code (e.g., ";; end of first delimiter") >> should only use 1 ; character >> - the series of if statements (if should-be-padded... if >> possibly-padded... if actually-padded...) would be more legible if >> written as a single `cond' form. >> >> Thanks for this change. It appears to pass all tests, so after the >> above have been addressed I'd be very happy to apply it. >> >> Thanks for contributing, this is much appreciated! >> >> If you have the time and inclination to include a test which fails >> without this patch applied that would be icing on the cake. >> >> Best, >> >> Footnotes: >> [1] http://orgmode.org/worg/org-contribute.html >> >> -- >> Eric Schulte >> https://cs.unm.edu/~eschulte >> PGP: 0x614CA05D >> > >