[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [O] Babel questions for finalising Processing support
From: |
Jarmo Hurri |
Subject: |
Re: [O] Babel questions for finalising Processing support |
Date: |
Sat, 07 Mar 2015 20:00:52 +0200 |
User-agent: |
Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/24.3 (gnu/linux) |
Aaron Ecay <address@hidden> writes:
>> 3. In ob-processing.el I (require 'ob). However, to avoid a compiler
>> warning about a free variable I still need to declare
>>
>> (eval-when-compile (defvar org-babel-temporary-directory))
>>
>> Is this ok?
>
> This looks bogus. The defvar for org-babel-temporary-directory is not
> evaluated when noninteractive is true. I think the defvar should be
> unconditional, but I also don’t understand why the code is like that in
> the first place, so let’s see if someone knows why before changing it.
Ok. On hold.
>> 4. Processing support in Babel will depend on processing2-emacs
>> module, which contains the function processing-sketch-run. Again,
>> to avoid compiler warnings, I am declaring this by
>>
>> (declare-function processing-sketch-run "processing-mode.el" nil)
>>
>> Is this ok?
>
> Are you not doing (require 'processing-mode)? If you do that, I don’t
> understand why the declare-function is also needed.
I am trying to be unselfish. :-) I have processing-mode.el in my system,
but an average org mode user, who will byte compile org, will not have
processing-mode.el in their system. A require would result in an error
for this average user during the byte compilation of org. I can program,
but I am no elisp expert, so this is just my understanding.
Should I do something like:
(if (null (require 'processing-mode nil :noerror))
(declare-function processing-sketch-run "processing-mode.el" nil))
>> 1. When editing Processing code with C-c ' I get an error from
>> processing-mode. Editing with C-c ' works just fine, but the error
>> is annoying. It seems to me the error is caused by the fact that
>> processing-mode refers to buffer-file-name, which is not valid in
>> a temporary buffer. Any ideas on how to fix this inside org?
>> (Wouldn't want to get involved with processing-mode if it can be
>> avoided.)
>
> Why not? It sounds like their code is causing the problem.
Ahem. After some greps I found out today that I had myself specified a
java hook which the processing hook inherited, and the reference to
buffer-file-name was there. Issue solved.
Jarmo