Re: [O] org version numbers in file - WAS: Tangling takes long - profiling and calling R

[Rainer M Krug]

Nicolas Goaziou <address@hidden> writes:

> Rainer M Krug <address@hidden> writes:
>
>> Nicolas Goaziou <address@hidden> writes:
>>
>>> Rainer M Krug <address@hidden> writes:
>>>
>>>> Yes - that's true. But who of the longer org users reads the manual of
>>>> features they use regularly?
>>>
>>> Ah well. I turned 3 `mapcar' calls into a single one. It should,
>>> hopefully improve speed in your case (could you confirm it).
>>
>> Hm - it takes actually longer (as far as I can see), but the mapcar
>> calls in the function now take 24% each (compared to 20 before).
>
> Considering the basic change I made, I fail to see how it could take
> longer. In the worst case, it should be equivalent.

I was surprised as well, but it could be other changes as well.

>
> Could you provide another report, with an uncompiled Org?

Thanks - I'll try to remember - for the moment I am quite busy but will come 
back
to your question.

>
>>> Also, I suggest to signal the deprecation in ORG-NEWS (old timers read
>>> it, right?) and remove this part of code during 8.4 development.
>>
>> I guess they might skim over it...
>
> Then, it's their responsibility.

The question is really if one can become more user friendly without to
much effort - that's why I suggested to put this check into
the linter and to run linter automatically if the file version is older
than the org version.

I can live with how it is at the moment.

>
>> What about putting a warning in the function in tangling (and other
>> places where this construct is evaluated) that this construct will not
>> be be allowed in the next major release?
>
> This is not the usual way to deprecate features. Breaking changes are
> written in ORG-NEWS, I don't see why this one would make an exception.

I know from R, that when a function is deprecated and about to be
removed from R, it will display a warning message whenever it is used.
This is quite user friendly and helps making the changes in the
code. This obviously does not work in org in the same way - which is why
I suggested to put into the tangling routine.

Would it be possible to display the changes / new features / breaking
change in a new version official release version upon starting this
version the first time, so that nobody can say "I did not read this"?

>
>> I know - unfortunately. But as far as I understand, it will be in the
>> next major release?
>
> Hopefully, yes.

Great.

>
>> True - but as far as deprecation of org constructs concerned, checks
>> could be explicitly put into the org-lint library - for some features
>> there are even conversion functions available - and linting could be
>> more robust in regards to deprecation checks?
>
> Not really.
>
> For example, even if we want to check for deprecated Babel header
> properties, there's no way to tell if ":cache: yes" is an obsolete way
> to use them or user's own properties.

OK - haven't considered the user defined properties.

>
>> In the spirit of reproducibility, I would at least suggest to introduce
>> a function which inserts an argument
>>
>> #+ORG_FILE_VERSION: TheActualOrgVersionProbablyWithGitHash
>>
>> if it does not exist, and if it exist, updates it to the actual
>> version?
>
> I see no objection to this. 
>
> We could extend `org-version' to do this, e.g., change its signature to
> (org-version &optional full medium) where MEDIUM can be `insert',
> `message' or `keyword'. In the latter case, it would create or update
> any such keyword in the current document.
>

I like this suggestion and that one possibly can specify the medium as a
prefix? That way, it would be possible to add it easily.

> Of course, we can provide a brand new function, instead.
>
> Do you want to provide a patch for that?

Sorry - I don't think that my elisp skills are sufficient for this.

>
>> This should be incorporated into the default header sets.
>
> What are the default header sets? You mean export template? I don't
> think this is needed as long as we don't use this keyword.

Yes - export templates.

I see it as an useful information to debug old non-working org files
manually - when you know the org version under which it *was* working,
you can look for significant changes since than and fix these.

In addition, if it is included, it will be easier to use it later
on.

Thanks,

Rainer

>
>
> Regards,

-- 
Rainer M. Krug, PhD (Conservation Ecology, SUN), MSc (Conservation Biology, 
UCT), Dipl. Phys. (Germany)

Centre of Excellence for Invasion Biology
Stellenbosch University
South Africa

Tel :       +33 - (0)9 53 10 27 44
Cell:       +33 - (0)6 85 62 59 98
Fax :       +33 - (0)9 58 10 27 44

Fax (D):    +49 - (0)3 21 21 25 22 44

email:      address@hidden

Skype:      RMkrug

PGP: 0x0F52F982

signature.asc
Description: PGP signature