Re: [PATCH] Fix behavior of lambda default header arg vars

[Ihor Radchenko]

Matt Huszagh <huszaghmatt@gmail.com> writes:

>> It would help if closure part and multi-variable part were split into
>> separate paragraphs.
>
> The closure part and muliple header argument part are already in
> separate paragraphs. The multiple header argument part, however, is
> incorporated into an introductory paragraph that very briefly describes
> the value syntax of org-babel-default-header-args and the types of alist
> values it supports. I did this because that introductory information is
> short and simple and so I felt it acceptable to incorporate the multiple
> header argument information. I don't feel this places a significant
> intellectual burden on the reader to follow, but I'm happy to insert a
> newline before "Some header arguments..." if you'd prefer.

Yes, please. And also move the multiple header arg parts below the
closure example.

>> Are you saying that _only some_ backends support multiple vars? Are
>> there backends that do not support?
>
> I think you're confused about "(e.g., :var for some language backends)":
>
> It's been a while since I created this patch and I don't remember
> exactly why I wrote it this way. I think it was based on the belief that
> not all language backends support variable passing in header arguments,
> though I honestly couldn't tell you at the moment whether this is
> true. In that vein, a semantically equivalent way to write this would be
> "(e.g., :var for language backends that support it)". Maybe all language
> backends support variable header arguments, in which case "(e.g., :var)"
> could be used here instead. In any case, the "some language backends"
> part of the phrase is not a qualification of "multiple", but of
> "variables". Nor is it correct to read it this way, as the statement is
> grammatically clear and correct. An equivalent statement would be:
>
> """
> Some header arguments can be provided multiple times for a source
> block. An example of such a header argument is :var.
> """

This looks slightly better. Though after reading your reply and
reviewing the docstring, I realize that my confusion partially came from
the fact that your patch is about closures, while the docstring change
is not.

Could you split that patch in two parts: one for the docstring change
and one for the :var parameter handling?

>> Also, the example is not helpful here.
>
> The example *is* helpful. It provides explicit direction for how to
> handle the non-obvious case of header arguments that can be passed
> multiple times, which isn't described much in the documentation.

Agree. See my above explanation about the source of confusion.

Best,
Ihor