[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [PATCH] lisp/ob-core.el: pass expanded body to org-confirm-babel-eva
From: |
Kyle Meyer |
Subject: |
Re: [PATCH] lisp/ob-core.el: pass expanded body to org-confirm-babel-evaluate |
Date: |
Sat, 05 Sep 2020 23:45:16 -0400 |
Tom Gillespie writes:
> Hi Kyle,
> Following up in this thread having investigated the impact of coderefs.
> My conclusion is that coderefs need to be stripped out before they are
> passed to org-confirm-babel-evaluate. They are not present in the
> executed code and removing them is not something that a definition
> of org-confirm-babel-evaluate should have to know anything about.
> Right now I work around them by suggesting that users comment
> out their coderefs. This works because my use case is restricted to
> elisp code and I strip the comments using read, but other languages
> would not have such an easy solution.
Thanks for revisiting this. This change (df5a83637) hasn't made it into
a release yet, so it'd be good to make this move now.
> I have included a patch against maint that reuses the let block
> from org-babel-execute-src-block to accomplish this.
> diff --git a/lisp/ob-core.el b/lisp/ob-core.el
> index cd876da0f..44b02feb9 100644
> --- a/lisp/ob-core.el
> +++ b/lisp/ob-core.el
> @@ -240,9 +240,14 @@ should be asked whether to allow evaluation."
> (funcall org-confirm-babel-evaluate
> ;; Language, code block body.
> (nth 0 info)
> - (if (org-babel-noweb-p headers :eval)
> - (org-babel-expand-noweb-references info)
> - (nth 1 info)))
> + (let ((coderef (nth 6 info))
> + (expand
> + (if (org-babel-noweb-p params :eval)
params is undefined here. I've s/params/headers/ when applying.
> + (org-babel-expand-noweb-references
> info)
> + (nth 1 info))))
> + (if (not coderef) expand
> + (replace-regexp-in-string
> + (org-src-coderef-regexp coderef) ""
> expand nil nil 1))))
> org-confirm-babel-evaluate))))
> (cond
> (noeval nil)
Okay, so this is equivalent to your original patch, though your initial
approach avoided duplicating the logic, which I think is worth doing.
I'd like to make sure this gets in before a release, so I've applied
this message's patch (3e1c0b0f4) and then followed it up with a patch
that adds a test, and another that extracts the duplicated logic out to
a helper (as in your original patch).