Hi,
When I try to run Org-drill, I get the backtrace below.
Others are seeing it too:
https://bitbucket.org/eeeickythump/org-drill/issues/62/org-drill-doesnt-work-with-org-mode-92
Ideas?
Thanks.
Debugger entered--Lisp error: (error "Invalid match tag: \"\"")
signal(error ("Invalid match
Hi,
When I try to run Org-drill, I get the backtrace below.
Others are seeing it too:
https://bitbucket.org/eeeickythump/org-drill/issues/62/org-drill-doesnt-work-with-org-mode-92
Ideas?
Thanks.
Debugger entered--Lisp error: (error "Invalid match tag: \"\"")
signal(error ("Invalid match
Eric Schulte schulte.e...@gmail.com writes:
Hi,
Indeed this example below no longer works, however I believe the new
behavior is both desired and permanent. I'll explain and include an
option for how your example could be restructured to work with the new
code.
We ran into problems
Sebastien Vauban
wxhgmqzgw...@spammotel.com writes:
The only case that pops up to my mind now, of such a use case where
overwriting could be needed (well, let's say useful) is for some pedagogical
document that one would write, where code is constructed from a simplistic
(and buggy) approach
Eric Schulte schulte.e...@gmail.com writes:
How about the following solution, which is based on a new :noweb-ref
header argument.
When expanding ``noweb'' style references the bodies of all code block
with /either/ a block name matching the reference name /or/ a :noweb-ref
header argument
Eric Schulte schulte.e...@gmail.com writes:
It would be possible to also implement the concatenation behavior during
noweb expansion, however I'd prefer to first wait for a response to my
recent other email to this thread asking for a more clear explication of
existing noweb behavior.
The
Eric Schulte schulte.e...@gmail.com writes:
Rather than feeling our way forward step by step it seems that simply
following the behavior of noweb would both
1. allow for easy transition between noweb and babel
2. benefit from the years of experience and design accumulated in the
noweb
Eric Schulte schulte.e...@gmail.com writes:
Could you try the attached example file? I first evaluated the
following elisp code to set the combination variable's value to append.
Your example works if there are no noweb references.
See the modified one where I have noweb references. Note
Eric Schulte schulte.e...@gmail.com writes:
Hi Neeum,
Thanks for your feedback. Your point is well taken about the
flexibility of header arguments, and the ability of a header argument
based solution to overwrite blocks.
I would mention that variables such as the newly introduced
Eric Schulte schulte.e...@gmail.com writes:
I like the concision of the =original-name syntax used by noweb, but I
would lean towards the use of a :noweb-append type header argument as
suggested above because currently the names of blocks in Babel carry no
semantic content and I'd prefer to
Achim Gratz strom...@nexgo.de writes:
Eric Schulte schulte.e...@gmail.com writes:
append the bodies of all blocks of the same name are appended
during tangling
several blocks with the same name seem a bit dubious, would it not be
cleaner to have an index part to the block name and a
Sebastien Vauban
wxhgmqzgw...@spammotel.com writes:
Hi Neeum,
Neeum Zawan wrote:
With noweb, one can continue a source block that one started
earlier. Can this not be done with Babel?
If not, I'm struggling a little with how to do LP using Babel...
Of course, this can be done here
Eric Schulte schulte.e...@gmail.com writes:
Second solution: create one sole block that will be tangled, and which
contains your other blocks (using the ref syntax), in the order you
want.
I had thought of this, but I find it somewhat lacking. Consider my
example above. I could have
Hi,
With noweb, one can continue a source block that one started
earlier. Can this not be done with Babel?
If not, I'm struggling a little with how to do LP using Babel...
Thanks.
14 matches
Mail list logo
