[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [O] [babel] Multiple results blocks for the same source code
From: |
Eric Schulte |
Subject: |
Re: [O] [babel] Multiple results blocks for the same source code |
Date: |
Fri, 23 Sep 2011 15:51:00 -0600 |
User-agent: |
Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/24.0.50 (gnu/linux) |
"Sebastien Vauban" <address@hidden> writes:
> Hi Eric,
>
> Eric Schulte wrote:
>> I could not reproduce the error you describe, and your test case passes
>> for me. I have added your test case to testing/test-ob.el however so it
>> should protect from this error in the future.
>
> I can't reproduce it anymore right now. But the goal was to have a fuse
> against that for the future, yes.
>
>> You could try running the test suite in batch mode (which will not load
>> your configuration) and see if the test still fails for you. If not
>> then the problem is probably due to either something in your config.
>
> When I get back in a "broken" config such as the one described here, I'll do
> it.
>
>> Thanks for the test case! -- Eric
>>
>> ps. the only comments I have on the test itself are
>> 1. The initial placement of the point is described in the
>> documentation string for the `org-test-with-temp-text' function
>
> That's very clear, yes, but for the case where we don't have the string
> "<point>" in the initial text. Is point at the end of the string, then? I
> guess so.
>
Oh, I see I didn't address that in the function documentation. In the
case of no explicit "<point>" marker the point is placed at the
beginning of the inserted text (which also happens to be the very
beginning of the buffer).
>
> But my question was more about...
>
>>> (org-babel-execute-src-block) ;; second code block execution
>>> ;; where is point (supposed to be)?
>
> ... the position of point after `org-babel-execute-src-block'.
>
The point should remain wherever it was before executing the code block.
>
>> 2. In the future if you could share new test cases as patches to the
>> relevant test file (i.e., using git format-patch) that would be
>> ideal
>
> That was my intention, after receiving a "nihil obstat" from you, or some
> suggestions for changes.
>
> Anyway, next time, I'll directly send a properly formatted patch.
>
Wonderful. Thanks again -- Eric
>
> Thanks.
>
> Best regards,
> Seb
--
Eric Schulte
http://cs.unm.edu/~eschulte/