[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [O] [BUG] Noweb reference eval syntax does not work

From: Rasmus
Subject: Re: [O] [BUG] Noweb reference eval syntax does not work
Date: Sun, 08 May 2016 14:57:29 +0200
User-agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/25.1.50 (gnu/linux)


Nicolas Goaziou <address@hidden> writes:

> fm4d <address@hidden> writes:
>> The noweb reference syntax that should insert results of
>> evaluation of src block itself instead of src block as
>> described in `org-babel-expand-noweb-reference` does not
>> seems to work.
>> Code for replication:
>> * Assign 
>> First we assign abc:
>> #+begin_src python :noweb-ref assign_abc
>> abc = "abc" + "def"
>> #+end_src
>> * Use
>> Then we use it in a function:
>> #+begin_src python :noweb tangle :tangle noweb-test.py
>> def x():
>>   <<assign_abc>>
>>   return abc
>> print(x())
>> #+end_src
>> <<assign_abc>> does work, <assign_abc()> fails with this error:
>> (error "Reference ‘assign_abc’ not found in this buffer")
>>   signal(error ("Reference ‘assign_abc’ not found in this buffer"))
>>   error("Reference `%s' not found in this buffer" "assign_abc")
>>   org-babel-ref-resolve("assign_abc()")
>>   ...
>> I am not sure if this is a bug or I am doing something wrong,
>> the documentation on this feature is not very comprehensive.
> I just discovered the :noweb-ref parameter.

I have used :noweb yes in the past, but it seems :noweb-ref can be
replaced by name in at least the single blog case:

    #+name: data
      df1 <- data.frame(x=rnorm(10), y=rnorm(10))

    #+BEGIN_SRC R :noweb yes

As you mention, we’d loose the ability to chain together multiple blocks.
I reckon they are meaningfully the same language, so I don’t see a loss.
The example shown in the manual also does not convince me of the
usefullness of this.

> It is redundant with #+NAME: keyword and slightly broken. Also it
> induces hacks like `org-babel-use-quick-and-dirty-noweb-expansion' to
> work-around its shortcomings. 
> Besides, it doesn't make much sense to add the same parameters to
> a bunch of blocks, so I find the syntax dubious.
> I understand it can be a handy shortcut for inserting multiple blocks,
> but, all in all, I tend to think it would be simpler to just remove the
> feature, along with `:noweb-sep' and
> `org-babel-use-quick-and-dirty-noweb-expansion'.

I’m happy to kill it off in Org-9.  I don’t know how widely the chaining
of blocks is used, though, and whether the fix is always as simple as
uniting the blocks.

> What do you, and others, think? Is NAME enough for noweb syntax, or is
> there a real need fo :noweb-ref?

I've put Aaron in carbon copy as he’s quite familiar with ob.


Governments should be afraid of their people

reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]