Cherry-picking org-babel.org from examplizing-output.
This commit is contained in:
commit
09675f518e
|
@ -208,7 +208,24 @@ would then be [[#sandbox][the sandbox]].
|
|||
** PROPOSED optional timestamp for output
|
||||
Add option to place an (inactive) timestamp at the #+resname, to
|
||||
record when that output was generated.
|
||||
** PROPOSED use example block for large amounts of stdout output?
|
||||
|
||||
*** source code block timestamps (optional addition)
|
||||
If we did this would we then want to place a timestamp on the
|
||||
source-code block, so that we would know if the results are
|
||||
current or out of date? This would have the effect of caching the
|
||||
results of calculations and then only re-running if the
|
||||
source-code has changed. For the caching to work we would need to
|
||||
check not only the timestamp on a source-code block, but also the
|
||||
timestamps of any tables or source-code blocks referenced by the
|
||||
original source-code block.
|
||||
|
||||
**** maintaining source-code block timestamps
|
||||
It may make sense to add a hook to `org-edit-special' which could
|
||||
update the source-code blocks timestamp. If the user edits the
|
||||
contents of a source-code block directly I can think of no
|
||||
efficient way of maintaining the timestamp.
|
||||
|
||||
** TODO use example block for large amounts of stdout output?
|
||||
We're currently `examplizing' with : at the beginning of the line,
|
||||
but should larger amounts of output be in a
|
||||
\#+begin_example...\#+end_example block? What's the cutoff? > 1
|
||||
|
@ -217,6 +234,11 @@ would then be [[#sandbox][the sandbox]].
|
|||
everything looks OK, and then fold it away.
|
||||
|
||||
I'm addressing this in branch 'examplizing-output'.
|
||||
Yea, that makes sense. (either that or allow folding of large
|
||||
blocks escaped with =:=).
|
||||
|
||||
Proposed cutoff of 10 lines, we can save this value in a user
|
||||
customizable variable.
|
||||
|
||||
** TODO make tangle files read-only?
|
||||
With a file-local variable setting, yea that makes sense. Maybe
|
||||
|
|
Loading…
Reference in New Issue