GNU bug report logs - #52545
29.0.50; Make org-babel-execute-buffer ignore irrelevant src blocks

Previous Next

Full log

View this message in rfc822 format

From: Rudolf Adamkovič <salutis <at> me.com>
To: "Berry, Charles" <ccberry <at> health.ucsd.edu>
Cc: Kyle Meyer <kyle <at> kyleam.com>, "52545 <at> debbugs.gnu.org" <52545 <at> debbugs.gnu.org>, Ihor Radchenko <yantar92 <at> gmail.com>
Subject: bug#52545: 29.0.50; Make org-babel-execute-buffer ignore irrelevant src blocks
Date: Thu, 30 Dec 2021 08:26:14 +0100

"Berry, Charles" <ccberry <at> health.ucsd.edu> writes:

> Rudy,
>
> Thanks for the comment, but ...
>
>> On Dec 25, 2021, at 1:37 PM, Rudolf Adamkovič <salutis <at> me.com> wrote:
>> 
>> I think we look at the problem from two different perspectives.  You
>> look at the problem from the "how" perspective, whereas I look at it
>> from the "why" perspective.  Sure, we can work around everything in
>> Org.  Now, does that mean that Org should try to execute BibTeX
>> blocks when executing a buffer?  I do not think so.
>
> Using standard features (properties, header-args) in a standard way
> does not strike me as a `work around'.

I apologize for the lack of clarity.  I used the term "workaround" from
the perspective of a user, who probably does not expect Org to try
"execute BibTeX" ever.

> You have not made a clear case that src blocks are even needed to
> support your use case. It may well be that export blocks (which never
> execute) would work just as well.  But with no ECM, one can only
> guess.

True that, I did not include an example!  Below, I include a typical use
case: Org notes about an article with a corresponding BibTeX entry.

(Note: I do not know what ECM stands for.)

[…]

#+property: header-args+ :comments link
#+cite_export: csl apa.csl

* Notes

[…]

* References

#+print_bibliography:

* Sources

#+begin_src bibtex :tangle knuth+2021.bib
@Article{knuth+2021,
  author       = {Knuth, Donald E. and Shustek, Len},
  title        = {Let's Not Dumb down the History of Computer Science},
  journal      = {Communications of the {ACM}},
  year         = 2021,
  volume       = 64,
  number       = 2,
  pages        = {33–35},
  month        = {jan},
  issue_date   = {February 2021},
  publisher    = {Association for Computing Machinery, {ACM}},
  issn         = {0001-0782},
  doi          = {10.1145/3442377},
  abstract     = {Donald Knuth on the best way to recognize the history
                  of computer science.},
  numpages     = 3
}
#+end_src

> I'm still inclined to call this a feature request, not a bug. And
> decisions about adding complexity to an already complicated code base
> should take that point of view, IMO.

Sure.  As a user, I can see it as both a bug, where Org tries to execute
BibTeX, but also as a feature, where Org needs to become smarter and
differentiate BibTeX from, say, Scheme or C.

Rudy
-- 
"Logic is a science of the necessary laws of thought, without which no
employment of the understanding and the reason takes place." -- Immanuel
Kant, 1785

Rudolf Adamkovič <salutis <at> me.com> [he/him]
Studenohorská 25
84103 Bratislava
Slovakia

Previous Next

GNU bug tracking system
Copyright (C) 1999 Darren O. Benham, 1997,2003 nCipher Corporation Ltd, 1994-97 Ian Jackson.