Re: Writing .el files for org in org?

[Rainer M Krug <Rainer@krugs.de>]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 3706 bytes --]

John Kitchin <jkitchin@andrew.cmu.edu> writes:

> What if we created a new directory in the repository called "org" which
> contains these kinds of files?  It would be analogous to the "lisp"
> directory. I don't think we need to have both ob-R.org and ob-R.el in the
> repository.

I think that would be a very good idea for certain modules like your
org-ref and ob-R I am working on.


>
> For example I wrote org-ref.org, and I load it like this in my init file
> (the intention here is to only tangle the org file when it is newer than
> the el file or if there is no el file. for some reason my memory says that
> org-babel-load-file was not doing this but that may be a faulty memory).
>
> (if (or
>      (not (file-exists-p "org-ref.el"))
>      (< (float-time (nth 5 (file-attributes "org-ref.el")))
>     (float-time (nth 5 (file-attributes "org-ref.org")))))
>     (progn
>       (org-babel-tangle-file (expand-file-name "org-ref.org"
> starter-kit-dir))
>       (load-file (expand-file-name "org-ref.el" starter-kit-dir)))
>   (require 'org-ref))

Isn't the already existing org-babel-load-file doing exactly that?
It is robust as it is used by many to load emacs.org, and it can also
compile the file.

>
> I could see there being something like the lisp path for finding these
> files, so that we could just do:
>
> (org-require 'org-ref)
>
> or the org-babel-load-file could be adapted to have a path to search for
> files. 

OK - this sounds like a good approach.

Thinking about it, I don't know if it is a good idea to change the
installed files or add new ones, as this might (will?) cause access
right problems. I would rather suggest to tangle the org file into a
temporary file and then load it from there. Therefore, write access is
not required for the installation (which is safer).

So this would mean a rewrite of the org-babel-load-file function, or
just add a third optional argument for the path of the .el and/or .elc
file.

> This way there is no auto-tangling, committing, etc... just regular
> version control on the source of the source.

That would be great, and I would convert the existing ob-R.el immediately.

Cheers,

Rainer

>
>
>
>
> John
>
> -----------------------------------
> John Kitchin
> Associate Professor
> Doherty Hall A207F
> Department of Chemical Engineering
> Carnegie Mellon University
> Pittsburgh, PA 15213
> 412-268-7803
> http://kitchingroup.cheme.cmu.edu
>
>
>
> On Thu, May 22, 2014 at 7:04 AM, Bastien <bzg@gnu.org> wrote:
>
>> Rainer M Krug <Rainer@krugs.de> writes:
>>
>> > So the reason why I think it would be advantageous to have these files
>> > in org does not lie with the programmer familiar with emacs-lisp, but
>> > with somebody familiar with the other side.
>>
>> Sorry I was too terse in my previous answer: I completely agree with
>> the goal you describe, but I don't think adding an .org source along
>> the .el output (say e.g. ob-R.org and ob-R.el) will simplify my life
>> as a maintainer: each time an ob-*.org file is changed we need to
>> tangle it again... and this leads to auto-tangling, auto-committing
>> considerations that I don't even want to start thinking about.
>>
>> --
>>  Bastien
>>
>>

-- 
Rainer M. Krug, PhD (Conservation Ecology, SUN), MSc (Conservation Biology, UCT), Dipl. Phys. (Germany)

Centre of Excellence for Invasion Biology
Stellenbosch University
South Africa

Tel :       +33 - (0)9 53 10 27 44
Cell:       +33 - (0)6 85 62 59 98
Fax :       +33 - (0)9 58 10 27 44

Fax (D):    +49 - (0)3 21 21 25 22 44

email:      Rainer@krugs.de

Skype:      RMkrug

PGP: 0x0F52F982

[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 494 bytes --]