From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Frederick Giasson Subject: Re: ob-clojure with tangling current broken Date: Tue, 22 Jan 2019 08:01:48 -0500 Message-ID: References: <8736plxh7j.fsf@gmail.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="00000000000036d44905800b9558" Return-path: Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([209.51.188.92]:49759) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1gm1tD-00052G-8n for emacs-orgmode@gnu.org; Tue, 22 Jan 2019 14:39:16 -0500 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1gm1tC-0006XS-7o for emacs-orgmode@gnu.org; Tue, 22 Jan 2019 14:39:15 -0500 Received: from mail-qk1-x734.google.com ([2607:f8b0:4864:20::734]:39320) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.0:RSA_AES_128_CBC_SHA1:16) (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1gm1tB-0006WC-Sc for emacs-orgmode@gnu.org; Tue, 22 Jan 2019 14:39:14 -0500 Received: by mail-qk1-x734.google.com with SMTP id c21so129917qkl.6 for ; Tue, 22 Jan 2019 11:39:13 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: <8736plxh7j.fsf@gmail.com> 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" To: numbchild@gmail.com Cc: Org-mode --00000000000036d44905800b9558 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Hi, That's why I added a patch recently. Now Nicolas already applied my > patch. You should already seen it now. > Yeah I just received that email right after I sent mine. Didn't know it was in the pipeline, I just re-subscribed to the mailing list. > > > > It turns out that the culprit is the following line: > > https://code.orgmode.org/bzg/org-mode/src/master/lisp/ob-clojure.el#L108 > > > > I am wondering why is there such code injection in > > "org-babel-expand-body:clojure". It looks like to be related to the > Clojure code > > block execution, but it also appears to be called from the tangling > function. > > Clearly those two different use cases needs to be properly handled at > the level > > of "ob-clojure.el" > > > > Expanding clojure code is necessary to tangling, because when user have > noweb reference etc in source block, expanding here is necessary. > Yes, that is right. What I was referring to I guess is to handle that case (tangling vs. code block execution within Emacs), which is what this patch is about, thanks! > > > I didn't follow all the changes to the "ob-clojure" mode in the last > year or so, > > so please pardon my ignorance if the module is taking a different > direction than > > I am used to. Is there a rational behind this behaviour or is there a > new feature > > that I am not aware of which properly handle those two use cases? > > > > Which part you don't understand, I might can answer your question, > because I did most of those changes in last year. > The only thing I meant here is that the last time I looked into this code, it was quite different, you guys appears to have worked a lot on it. Another thing I discovered is the =ob-clojure-literate=, but even after reading its [sparse] doc and its code, I am not sure what it concretely adds to =ob-clojure= Thanks for this work! Take care, Fred --00000000000036d44905800b9558 Content-Type: text/html; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Hi,

That's why I added a patch recently. Now Nicolas already applied my
patch. You should already seen it now.

= Yeah I just received that email right after I sent mine. Didn't know it= was in the pipeline, I just re-subscribed to the mailing list.
=C2=A0
>
> It turns out that the culprit is the following line:
> https://code.orgmode.or= g/bzg/org-mode/src/master/lisp/ob-clojure.el#L108
>
> I am wondering why is there such code injection in
> "org-babel-expand-body:clojure". It looks like to be related= to the Clojure code
> block execution, but it also appears to be called from the tangling fu= nction.
> Clearly those two different use cases needs to be properly handled at = the level
> of "ob-clojure.el"
>

Expanding clojure code is necessary to tangling, because when user have
noweb reference etc in source block, expanding here is necessary.

Yes, that is right. What I was referring to I gu= ess is to handle that case (tangling vs. code block execution within Emacs)= , which is what this patch is about, thanks!
=C2=A0

> I didn't follow all the changes to the "ob-clojure" mode= in the last year or so,
> so please pardon my ignorance if the module is taking a different dire= ction than
> I am used to. Is there a rational behind this behaviour or is there a = new feature
> that I am not aware of which properly handle those two use cases?
>

Which part you don't understand, I might can answer your question,
because I did most of those changes in last year.

=
The only thing I meant here is that the last time I looked into = this code, it was quite different, you guys appears to have worked a lot on= it.

Another thing I discovered is the =3Dob-cloju= re-literate=3D, but even after reading its [sparse] doc and its code, I am = not sure what it concretely adds to =3Dob-clojure=3D

Thanks for this work!

Take care,

=
Fred


--00000000000036d44905800b9558--