Hi Greg,
Soapy Smith soapy-sm...@comcast.net writes:
Is there a way to get the
complete code blocks exported in an entire org file using a global
option?
I think you want :export both -- see tangle export options in the
manual.
Python code blocks are used for comparison. There were some
Hi Greg,
Soapy Smith soapy-sm...@comcast.net writes:
The problem is that the results inserted into the org document should be
tabularized.
This should now be fixed in master -- thanks for further testing,
and thanks to Eric for giving the solution.
--
Bastien
Great news!
I will update my system to the master.
I will create an org file with permutations of the :results option and
export to LaTeX and HTML. Perhaps even compare to Python behavior.
I will attempt to push the test files to github later today. I need the
git practice!
Regards,
Greg
On
Here are the files from testing of Clojure code blocks with the latest
master:
https://github.com/Greg-R/org-babel-clojure-tests?source=cc
The PDF file is the result of a LaTeX export.
The code blocks were forced to appear as they do in the org file by
wrapping them in begin_example/end_example.
Hi Christian, I think that is a very good point!
From the manual, the explanation of what is returned as a result
using :results raw
raw The results are interpreted as raw Org mode code and are inserted
directly into
the buffer. If the results look like a table they will be aligned as
such by
Soapy Smith writes:
Christian, could you try :results table with Python and reply back with
the #+RESULTS:?
Same as the default, i.e. a table, as expected.
#+RESULTS:
| 1 | 2 | 3 |
The Babel/Clojure behavior you report does seem buggy.
I'm afraid I can't be of further help, but hopefully
Yes, I agree the Clojure behavior is not quite correct. But all the
functionality is there if both the old and new are combined. I think
only a rearrangement of existing code is required.
I like the idea of comparing to the behavior of Python code blocks.
I've got a Coursera class coming up
Soapy Smith soapy-sm...@comcast.net writes:
Yes, I agree the Clojure behavior is not quite correct. But all the
functionality is there if both the old and new are combined. I think
only a rearrangement of existing code is required.
Try evaluating the following and see how it works. This
Eric Schulte schulte.e...@gmail.com writes:
Try evaluating the following and see how it works.
It works fine for me:
,
| #+BEGIN_SRC clojure :results table
| (map #(* %1 3) '(1 2 3))
| #+END_SRC
|
| #+RESULTS:
| | 3 | 6 | 9 |
`
This simply copies
the results handling from the slime
It is better. To really stress it, I tried a two-row table:
#+begin_src clojure :results table
[[:ny :nj :ct]
[ 7 9 4]]
#+end_src
#+RESULTS:
| :ny | :nj | :ct |
| 7 | 9 | 4 |
On Wed, Jan 29, 2014 at 10:28 AM, Bastien b...@gnu.org wrote:
Eric Schulte schulte.e...@gmail.com
Hello to the list, my first message here.
This is in regards to code blocks in the Clojure language.
The problem is that the results inserted into the org document should be
tabularized. This is not happening using the latest version of org.
Here is the simplest possible example:
#+begin_src
Soapy Smith writes:
The problem is that the results inserted into the org document should be
tabularized. This is not happening using the latest version of org.
Here is the simplest possible example:
#+begin_src clojure :results value raw
[1 2 3 4]
#+end_src
#+RESULTS:
[1 2 3 4]
Hi,
12 matches
Mail list logo
