[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: ob-shell intentions and paperwork (was Bash results broken?)
From: |
Ihor Radchenko |
Subject: |
Re: ob-shell intentions and paperwork (was Bash results broken?) |
Date: |
Sat, 31 Dec 2022 12:56:37 +0000 |
Matt <matt@excalamus.com> writes:
> > > +;; TODO refactor into macro. Currently violates (elisp) Coding
> > > +;; Conventions and is hard to debug.
> > > (defun org-babel-shell-initialize ()
> > > "Define execution functions associated to shell names.
> >
> > Could you please elaborate? Which particular convention does it violate?
> > What is hard to debug?
>
> (elisp) Coding Conventions says,
>
> "• Constructs that define a function or variable should be macros, not
> functions, and their names should start with ‘define-’. The macro
> should receive the name to be defined as the first argument. That
> will help various tools find the definition automatically. Avoid
> constructing the names in the macro itself, since that would
> confuse these tools."
>
> The `org-babel-shell-initialize' function defines *all* the
> `org-babel-execute:XXX' functions given by `org-babel-shell-names' (sh, bash,
> zsh, etc.).
I agree that `org-babel-shell-initialize' could use a better name.
As for being a macro, there will be not much gain - the convention is
mostly designed for things like `cl-defun' aimed to be used in the code.
`org-babel-shell-initialize' is only used by `org-babel-shell-names'.
I do not have objections if it were a macro though. (But I do not see
how it would help debugging).
> Because `org-babel-shell-initialize' is a function factory, you can't easily
> examine or modify their definitions. `C-h f org-babel-execute:sh' jumps to
> the top of lisp/ob-shell.el. Changing the definition requires reevaluating
> the definition for all the execute functions (or first changing
> `org-babel-shell-names').
This is indeed a downside. Any better ideas?
ob-core dictates that we must have org-babel-execute:lang functions to
make things work.
> This was a problem for me when I wanted to make the session name string for
> `test-ob-shell/session' the test name (mentioned above). In the test, when I
> replaced the session name string with a variable containing the string,
> `org-babel-execute:sh' failed with a type error. I couldn't get the variable
> to evaluate (with backquote and comma or otherwise). Without an explicit
> function definition or a macro to expand, I found it hard to debug/experiment
> with (and so left the test name as a hard coded string).
Could you please explain a bit more about the problem? I do not see how
macro would help in this situation.
> I probably don't need it and am happy to remove it. An older version of
> the function was more complex and made sense as a separate function (or so I
> thought). My aim was to make the test strings easy to read so that it's
> clearer what's being tested (i.e. not write multi-line strings on a single
> line). I could use concat and add "\n" to the end of each line. Or, simply
> write out the string-join. Maybe there's another way to write multi-line
> strings that I'm not aware of in Elisp, maybe something like Python's
> triple-quote?
We write multi-line docstrings all the time without extra macros. I
recommend using paredit or similar packages to auto-escape things that
need to be escaped.
--
Ihor Radchenko // yantar92,
Org mode contributor,
Learn more about Org mode at <https://orgmode.org/>.
Support Org development at <https://liberapay.com/org-mode>,
or support my work at <https://liberapay.com/yantar92>
- Re: Bash results broken?, (continued)
ob-shell intentions and paperwork (was Bash results broken?), Matt, 2022/12/21
- Re: ob-shell intentions and paperwork (was Bash results broken?), Matt, 2022/12/27
- Re: ob-shell intentions and paperwork (was Bash results broken?), Ihor Radchenko, 2022/12/29
- Re: ob-shell intentions and paperwork (was Bash results broken?), Bastien Guerry, 2022/12/29
- Re: ob-shell intentions and paperwork (was Bash results broken?), Matt, 2022/12/30
- Re: ob-shell intentions and paperwork (was Bash results broken?), Bastien Guerry, 2022/12/30
- Re: ob-shell intentions and paperwork (was Bash results broken?), Matt, 2022/12/30
- Re: ob-shell intentions and paperwork (was Bash results broken?), Ihor Radchenko, 2022/12/31
Re: ob-shell intentions and paperwork (was Bash results broken?),
Ihor Radchenko <=