Hi Ihor, I’m resending this email because I realized I forgot to include emacs-orgmode. Apologies.
> Instead, we can handle `org-babel-tangle-use-relative-file-links' in > `org-babel-tangle-single-block' itself, post-processing the link there. > Then, we can, say, store the processed link in PARAMS as > :ob-tangle--link when calling `org-babel-expand-noweb-references' and > make `org-babel-tangle-comment-links' check for :ob-tangle--link > parameter instead of calling `org-babel-tangle--unbracketed-link' to > generate the link. Yes, this definitely makes sense, but we need to get rid of the `only-this-block` parameter here, since the result of `org-babel-tangle-single-block` needs to be a nested list. This must be a breaking change that we discussed before. I'll address the other issues you mentioned in the last email. Regards Zhe Lei On Thu, May 22, 2025 at 10:19 AM Lei Zhe <lzhe...@gmail.com> wrote: > > Hi Ihor, > > I was busy recently. Sorry for the late response. > > > Instead, we can handle `org-babel-tangle-use-relative-file-links' in > > `org-babel-tangle-single-block' itself, post-processing the link there. > > Then, we can, say, store the processed link in PARAMS as > > :ob-tangle--link when calling `org-babel-expand-noweb-references' and > > make `org-babel-tangle-comment-links' check for :ob-tangle--link > > parameter instead of calling `org-babel-tangle--unbracketed-link' to > > generate the link. > > Yes, this definitely makes sense, but we need to get rid of the > `only-this-block` parameter here, since the result of > `org-babel-tangle-single-block` needs to be a nested list. This must > be a breaking change that we discussed before. > > I'll address the other issues you mentioned in the last email. > > Regards > Zhe Lei > > On Sun, Apr 13, 2025 at 4:39 PM Ihor Radchenko <yanta...@posteo.net> wrote: > > > > Lei Zhe <lzhe...@gmail.com> writes: > > > > >> I'd rather avoid such non-deterministic return value. > > >> Having different return values depending on the :tangle parameter is, > > >> IMHO, not the best design. I'd rather go with my idea of adding a new > > >> optional argument that will turn on the new return value convention and > > >> fall back to legacy by default. > > > > > I agree with what you suggested. However, I’m currently struggling to > > > implement it in a way that cleanly addresses a couple of issues: > > > 1. When `only-this-block' is nil and :tangle has multiple targets, the > > > link in the return result becomes ambiguous. > > > > It is ambiguous even when only-this-block is non-nil - > > `org-babel-tangle--unbracketed-link' uses :tangle value directly, > > assuming that it is a path to tangled file. > > > > > 2. As I mentioned, I'm unsure how to handle the output of > > > org-babel-tangle--unbracketed-link for its use in > > > org-babel-tangle-comment-links. > > > I'm open to suggestions. > > > > `org-babel-tangle-comment-links' is used in > > `org-babel-expand-noweb-references', which, in turn, is called by > > `org-babel-tangle-single-block'. > > > > That's complicated... > > > > I think that the root problem here is > > `org-babel-tangle--unbracketed-link' trying to account for > > `org-babel-tangle-use-relative-file-links'. If not this, > > `org-babel-tangle--unbracketed-link' would not care about :tangle > > parameter. > > > > The easiest solution is thus getting rid of the > > `org-babel-tangle-use-relative-file-links' branch in > > `org-babel-tangle--unbracketed-link'. > > > > Instead, we can handle `org-babel-tangle-use-relative-file-links' in > > `org-babel-tangle-single-block' itself, post-processing the link there. > > Then, we can, say, store the processed link in PARAMS as > > :ob-tangle--link when calling `org-babel-expand-noweb-references' and > > make `org-babel-tangle-comment-links' check for :ob-tangle--link > > parameter instead of calling `org-babel-tangle--unbracketed-link' to > > generate the link. > > > > Does it make sense? > > > > > +(defun org-babel-tangle--concat-targets (buffer-fn info) > > > + "Compute the list of target file paths for tangling a source block. > > > +The BUFFER-FN is the absolute file name of the buffer, INFO the source > > > + block information, as returned by `org-babel-get-src-block-info'." > > > + (let* ((params (nth 2 info)) > > > + (src-lang (nth 0 info)) > > > + (src-tdirectories (cdr (assq :tangle-directory params))) > > > + (src-tfiles (cdr (assq :tangle params)))) > > > + (unless (or (not src-tdirectories) > > > + (consp src-tdirectories)) > > > + (setq src-tdirectories (list src-tdirectories))) > > > > You can just use `ensure-list' here. > > > > > + (unless (consp src-tfiles) > > > + (setq src-tfiles > > > + (list (cond ((string= src-tfiles "yes") > > > + (file-name-nondirectory > > > + (org-babel-effective-tangled-filename > > > buffer-fn src-lang src-tfiles))) > > > + ((string= src-tfiles "no") nil) > > > + (t src-tfiles))))) > > > + (when (and src-tdirectories > > > + (not (equal src-tfiles '(nil)))) > > > > '(nil) looks fishy. Are you sure that it is right? > > > > > + (setq src-tfiles > > > + (apply 'append > > > + (mapcar (lambda (src-tdirectory) > > > + (mapcar (lambda (src-tfile) > > > + (expand-file-name src-tfile > > > src-tdirectory)) > > > + src-tfiles)) > > > + src-tdirectories)))) > > > > This may be problematic if src-tfiles contains absolute paths. > > You will get duplicates. > > Also, src-tdirectory might contain duplicates. > > > > -- > > Ihor Radchenko // yantar92, > > Org mode maintainer, > > Learn more about Org mode at <https://orgmode.org/>. > > Support Org development at <https://liberapay.com/org-mode>, > > or support my work at <https://liberapay.com/yantar92>
