[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [PATCH] lisp/ob-core.el: pass expanded body to org-confirm-babel-eva
Re: [PATCH] lisp/ob-core.el: pass expanded body to org-confirm-babel-evaluate
Sat, 1 Aug 2020 23:03:54 -0700
Sorry for the slow turnaround time on this one. Having now tested
it, I think that your solution is a much better one for the time
being, so please go ahead and apply it. From this discussion there are
a number of good options for improvements in the future, but my
priority would be to get the expanded version of the body passed to
org-confirm-babel-evaluate asap with as few disturbances to the rest
of the code base as possible. Best!
On Tue, Jul 21, 2020 at 9:20 PM Kyle Meyer <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
> Tom Gillespie writes:
> > On Sun, Jul 19, 2020 at 2:13 PM Kyle Meyer <email@example.com> wrote:
> >> An option not mentioned above is to replace (nth 1 info) with the
> >> expanded body upstream of (when (org-babel-check-evaluate info) ...).
> >> Modifying the body in INFO is admittedly not pretty, but it's in line
> >> with what is done elsewhere (e.g., -expand-src-block,
> >> -exp-process-buffer, -load-in-session), as well as with how other INFO
> >> elements in -execute-src-block are handled.
> > I considered this as well, and in fact I assumed that this is how it worked
> > before I looked to see the code was actually doing. I didn't know what the
> > consequences of making it work that way would be and tend to err on the
> > side of not kobbering data that some other function might expect to be in
> > an unmodified state. This would certainly be the most expedient solution.
> > There would need to be a way to indicate that info should not expand noweb
> > references so that :noweb no-export can get the unexpanded form. Maybe
> > and optional argument =expand= that defaults to t?
> > (defun org-babel-get-src-block-info (&optional light datum expand)
> > ... )
> Hmm, it looks like you're thinking of a different spot than I was
> referring to. I was talking about modifying (nth 1 info) in
> -execute-src-block, before the (when (org-babel-check-evaluate ...).
> Prior to commit 3b3fc520a, (nth 1 info) was modified in
> -execute-src-block but after org-babel-check-evaluate and
> org-babel-confirm-evaluate. That makes me think it'd probably be safe
> to do again, just a bit upstream in the same function. And I don't see
> a spot where modifying that element would be problematic. On the
> incoming end, INFO is passed to copy-tree if it is provided as an
> argument, and I don't think any of the functions that -execute-src-block
> feeds INFO to would be affected. But I of course could be overlooking
> On the other hand, if org-babel-get-src-block-info did the expansion,
> I'd be a bit more worried about downstream effects (though I haven't
> tried to trace things too closely). Also, -execute-src-block takes a
> PARAMS argument, and I think that needs to be merged with (nth 2 info)
> before considering whether to expand, so it seems like expanding in
> -get-src-block-info would be too soon.
> Regardless of whether modifying (nth 1 info) would work, I also think
> it'd be fine to instead go ahead with something along the lines of your
> initial patch. In that case, the main question is whether coderefs
> should be removed (as they currently are in your patch). If not,
> perhaps something like below (untested) would suffice.
> diff --git a/lisp/ob-core.el b/lisp/ob-core.el
> index e798595bd..230706b7f 100644
> --- a/lisp/ob-core.el
> +++ b/lisp/ob-core.el
> @@ -238,7 +238,10 @@ (defun org-babel-check-confirm-evaluate (info)
> (if (functionp org-confirm-babel-evaluate)
> (funcall org-confirm-babel-evaluate
> ;; Language, code block body.
> - (nth 0 info) (nth 1 info))
> + (nth 0 info)
> + (if (org-babel-noweb-p headers :eval)
> + (org-babel-expand-noweb-references info)
> + (nth 1 info)))
> (noeval nil)
- Re: [PATCH] lisp/ob-core.el: pass expanded body to org-confirm-babel-evaluate,
Tom Gillespie <=