Hi Torsten,
I love the idea of a Babel for dummies manual, and I'm an even bigger
fan of the manual being produced by user's of Babel (i.e. not myself).
I'll be more than happy to support this effort in any way.
Also, the beta-testing role you mention could be extremely helpful. In
the absence
Hi,
many thanks for the nice thoughts and posts.
To sum up, I think it might not be easy to remove parts of org-babel
since it is difficult to determine and a highly personal decision to
define what is important and what is unimportant.
Nevertheless Carten and Eric pointed out that the
On Jun 28, 2010, at 5:51 PM, Torsten Wagner wrote:
Dear All,
as a (quite, but happy) org-bable user of the first hour I followed up
the development process actively.
Nevertheless, some weeks or months pass where I had no need for
org-babel (yes, really strange I know).
Whenever I come back
Hi Torsten,
Thanks for bringing this up. I think you're right that Org-babel does
need to expose some simple points of entry.
However in reviewing the points of complexity,
- tangling
- noweb references
- the profusion of header arguments
- the library of babel
my immersed and subjective
Hi Erik,
Erik Iverson er...@ccbr.umn.edu writes:
[...]
I have not used it for Python, but for R coding I've found it
incredibly intuitive. However, that might be because R has long
supported literate programming through Sweave, complete with noweb
syntax and code tangling.
Speaking of
Hello!
snip
Whenever I come back to org-babel, it takes me a huge amount of time to
find myself back again in the syntax. Often I spend a day or two heavily
reading the website and manual again to figure out how to make it working.
There are so many options. tangle files, results, scripting
