Re: transclusion, tangling, flycheck/flymake, etc.

[Noboru Ota]

Ihor Radchenko <yantar92@gmail.com> writes:

> Greg Minshall <minshall@umich.edu> writes:
>
>> my thought about flycheck, flymake, whatever, is that (optionally) a
>> silent, background, =tangle= and/or =<<noweb>> expansion= would take
>> place to produce a "full source file buffer"[*], then the narrowed
>> version of that (corresponding to the part where =C-c '= was issued)
>> buffer is presented for the user's editing convenience.
>
> You are right. That's what I had in mind. Though noweb <<name()>>-style
> references may need to be transcluded without expanding - they may be
> computationally expensive.
>
>> your thought here, iiuc, is that source files would live in the file
>> system, and be transcluded into the .org file.  i can see the utility of
>> that.  but, i would miss =<<noweb>>= and also the ability to break the
>> source code into small chunks for purposes of documentation.
>
> No. I did not imply that source files will be transcluded into the .org
> file. Currently, .org file is the source of the code (unless you use
> org-babel-detangle). I was thinking that C-c ' will trigger generating a
> temporary prog-mode buffer (according to .org file!). It is not a good
> idea to associate the temporary buffer with actual file because tangling
> may involve expanding noweb references. Noweb sometimes require long
> computations or even access to remote servers. I think that it's better
> to trigger tangle process manually by default.

This part of the discussion is beyond me; apologies for not being able
to engage in a useful way.  I don't consider myself a programmer so the
use of Org-transclusion to achieve some elements of IDE (integrated
development environment, I assume) experience is something I cannot
fully address.

As an attempt to clarify my original intent, this use from Greg is what
I had in mind: "source files would live in the file system, and be
transcluded into the .org file".  This lets the technical writer (for
example) "break the source code into small chunks for purposes of
documentation."  I have had a comment from a user that that's exactly
this person is doing.

So the direction is *from* the source file *to* an org file.  What Ihor
seems to be suggesting is the other direction: *from* an org file *to* a
(temporary) source file.  I do not think the latter is possible with the
current state of Org-transclusion.

Noboru