Re: [O] do sh source blocks ignore args? [7.8.09]

[Neil Best]

Org-mode version 7.8.09

How could this be?

I ran it in a separate, minimally configured Emacs and got the good
behavior, so org-version must be lying somehow or else not all of the
functions were redefined when I upgraded.  I thought a reload
uncompiled would take care of this.  I'll restart emacs and try it
again.  Thanks for the sanity check.



On Thu, Apr 26, 2012 at 1:59 PM, Eric Schulte <address@hidden> wrote:
> Neil Best <address@hidden> writes:
>
>> Can sh source block take arguments?  I get nothing.
>>
>> #+NAME: test(foo="bar")
>> #+BEGIN_SRC sh :session :results output verbatim replace
>>   echo "1. foo is $foo"
>>   echo "2. foo is ${foo}"
>> #+END_SRC
>>
>> #+RESULTS:
>> : 1. foo is
>> : 2. foo is
>>
>>
>> . . . but this is fine:
>>
>> #+NAME: test2
>> #+BEGIN_SRC sh :var foo="bar" :session :results output verbatim
>> replace
>>   echo "1. foo is $foo"
>>   echo "2. foo is ${foo}"
>> #+END_SRC
>>
>> #+RESULTS:
>> : 1. foo is bar
>> : 2. foo is bar
>>
>> When I tried this:
>>
>> #+CALL: test("baz")
>>
>> I get "reference 'test' not found in this buffer" -- what does this
>> mean?  I got a similar message when I tried to define a simple call
>> using an R fragment that has a session associated with it.  Evaluating
>> the code block with the default argument works fine, but a #+CALL:
>> construct fails.  Maybe this is a separate issue.
>>
>> I trolled the web for relevant examples or reports but found none.  My
>> setup is pretty much out-of-the-box.  I am on Ubuntu Oneiric so sh is
>> a symlink to dash.  I was not aware of dash until now so I don't know
>> what the implications of that are.
>>
>> This example may be overly trivial.  My ultimate goal is to generate
>> shell scripts as function of the argument and tangle them out
>> something like this:
>>
>> #+BEGIN_SRC sh :tangle someArg.sh
>>   <<script("someArg")>>
>> #+END_SRC
>>
>> So the results of the "function" will be lines of script code with
>> variables already interpolated using echo and a heredoc.  Note that
>> test2 will not allow me to paramterize this, AFAIK.  I'll have to
>> write each tangle block by hand but there's a small number of them.
>> If there is a more clever way I am certainly interested, but it seems
>> irrelevant until I understand what is happening above.  Thanks.  I am
>> very intrigued by LP possibilities using Org after messing with Sweave
>> for a year+, so please bear with me as I cut my teeth.
>>
>
> Hi Neil,
>
> Are you using the latest version of Org-mode?  I ask because all of your
> examples work as expected on my system, specifically I get the
> following...
>
> Best,
>
> #+NAME: test(foo="bar")
> #+BEGIN_SRC sh :session :results output verbatim replace
>  echo "1. foo is $foo"
>  echo "2. foo is ${foo}"
> #+END_SRC
>
> #+RESULTS: test
> : 1. foo is bar
> : 2. foo is bar
>
> . . . but this is fine:
>
> #+NAME: test2
> #+BEGIN_SRC sh :var foo="bar" :session :results output verbatim
> replace
>  echo "1. foo is $foo"
>  echo "2. foo is ${foo}"
> #+END_SRC
>
> #+RESULTS: test2
> : 1. foo is bar
> : 2. foo is bar
>
> #+RESULTS:
> : 1. foo is bar
> : 2. foo is bar
>
> When I tried this:
>
> #+CALL: test("baz")
>
> #+RESULTS: test("baz")
> : 1. foo is baz
> : 2. foo is baz
>
>
> --
> Eric Schulte
> http://cs.unm.edu/~eschulte/