Hi Nick, I think you misunderstood me there - I am actually not worried about how computationally intensive the tangling process is. This always works very quickly, so even if they have to be copied around and take a bit longer, I would not mind.
Thanks Holger On Fri, Nov 18, 2011 at 8:32 PM, Nick Dokos <nicholas.do...@hp.com> wrote: > Holger Hoefling <hhoef...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > Hi Carsten, > > > > thanks for the suggestion, but as I agree with Brian. If there is more > > than one source file in the org-file, then the whole project would > > still be recompiled, not just the updated file. > > > > To be more exact, I actually don't want to compile things, but run R > > scripts using make. So the waiting time if a computationally intensive > > step is repeated although it is not necessary can be substantial. > > > > I wonder how difficult the following change would be (no emacs lisp > experience, also do not know the org source code): > > > > - would it be possible to write out the source files when tangling > > - into a temporary directory, then compare to the actual target files > > - and overwrite only if something has changed? Then the time stamps > > - would stay fixed. Hopefully, this would not involve too much work: > > You've lost right there unless there is a method to select *which* source > blocks to tangle. IOW, the problem is not the *comparison* of the temp and > actual > target files, it is the *production* of the temp files themselves: that's > the computationally expensive step and this method does nothing to > alleviate > that. Unless I'm missing something. > > Nick > > > - creating temporary files and remembering the mapping to true files > > > - tangling out as usual into temporary files (so probably little > > - change there) > > > - compare temporary file to true file (does emacs already have a diff > > - utility that could be used?) > > > - overwrite true file if any changes > > > - delete temporary files > >
