[lint] imagemagick

[lint] imagemagick

[Andreas Leha]

Hi all, 

I get a spurious linting warning
,----
| high  Unknown header argument ":imagemagick"
`----

While that header argument should be valid for latex blocks.

Regards,
Andreas

Re: [lint] imagemagick

[Nicolas Goaziou]

Hello,

Andreas Leha <andreas.leha@med.uni-goettingen.de> writes:

> I get a spurious linting warning
> ,----
> | high  Unknown header argument ":imagemagick"
> `----
>
> While that header argument should be valid for latex blocks.

Assuming possible values for :imagemagick are nil and t, this is now
fixed in master.

Thank you.


Regards,

-- 
Nicolas Goaziou

Re: [lint] imagemagick

[Andreas Leha]

Hi Nicolas,

Nicolas Goaziou <mail@nicolasgoaziou.fr> writes:
> Hello,
>
> Andreas Leha <andreas.leha@med.uni-goettingen.de> writes:
>
>> I get a spurious linting warning
>> ,----
>> | high  Unknown header argument ":imagemagick"
>> `----
>>
>> While that header argument should be valid for latex blocks.
>
> Assuming possible values for :imagemagick are nil and t, this is now
> fixed in master.
>

Thanks a lot!

I am not sure about the possible values, though.  babel header arguments
usually take 'yes' and 'no' as values for TRUE and FALSE.  Examples are
:tangle, :comments, etc.
So, I have been using ':imagemagick yes' until now.

But on the other hand ':imagemagick no' is not doing the expected thing.

Regards,
Andreas

Re: [lint] imagemagick

[Nicolas Goaziou]

Andreas Leha <andreas.leha@med.uni-goettingen.de> writes:

> I am not sure about the possible values, though.  babel header arguments
> usually take 'yes' and 'no' as values for TRUE and FALSE.

Which is, IMO, a mistake. Lisp has already some definition of TRUE and
FALSE which is not language-centric.

> Examples are :tangle, :comments, etc. So, I have been using
> ':imagemagick yes' until now.
>
> But on the other hand ':imagemagick no' is not doing the expected
> thing.

I looked at the source and every time, :imagemagick is treated as
a boolean, so "yes" and "no" are equivalent to t.

At least, the declaration seems on par with the source.

Regards,

Re: [lint] imagemagick

[Andreas Leha]

Hi Nicolas,

Nicolas Goaziou <mail@nicolasgoaziou.fr> writes:
> Andreas Leha <andreas.leha@med.uni-goettingen.de> writes:
>
>> I am not sure about the possible values, though.  babel header arguments
>> usually take 'yes' and 'no' as values for TRUE and FALSE.
>
> Which is, IMO, a mistake. Lisp has already some definition of TRUE and
> FALSE which is not language-centric.

I agree completely.

>
>> Examples are :tangle, :comments, etc. So, I have been using
>> ':imagemagick yes' until now.
>>
>> But on the other hand ':imagemagick no' is not doing the expected
>> thing.
>
> I looked at the source and every time, :imagemagick is treated as
> a boolean, so "yes" and "no" are equivalent to t.

Exactly.  I guess my implicit question was, whether we should aim to
make :imagemagick accept 'no' as nil to be consistent with the general
org babel conventions.

As I get it, you would say: no.

(The next question would be whether we live with inconsistency or
whether we should switch the other header arguments backward
incompatibly use t and nil as well...)

>
> At least, the declaration seems on par with the source.

Yes, thanks!

Andreas

Re: [lint] imagemagick

[Nicolas Goaziou]

Andreas Leha <andreas.leha@med.uni-goettingen.de> writes:

> Exactly.  I guess my implicit question was, whether we should aim to
> make :imagemagick accept 'no' as nil to be consistent with the general
> org babel conventions.
>
> As I get it, you would say: no.

Not at all. My main concern was to fix the issue. This is another one.

We could accept "no" as nil. Patches welcome.

Meanwhile, we could also add a rule to `org-lint' warning about
deprecate use of "yes" and "no" and suggest to slowly switch to nil and
t, if that's really important.

-- 
Nicolas