adding discussion to PROPOSED conversion between org-babel and noweb (e.g. .Rnw) format

This commit is contained in:
Eric Schulte 2009-05-29 17:45:25 -07:00
parent 986fcb4652
commit 2fe76cd094
1 changed files with 28 additions and 0 deletions

View File

@ -232,6 +232,34 @@ Another example is in the [[*operations%20in%20on%20tables][grades example]].
** PROPOSED conversion between org-babel and noweb (e.g. .Rnw) format
I haven't thought about this properly. Just noting it down. What
Sweave uses is called "R noweb" (.Rnw).
I found a good description of noweb in the following article (see
the [[http://www.cs.tufts.edu/~nr/pubs/lpsimp.pdf][pdf]]).
I think there are two parts to noweb, the construction of
documentation and the extraction of source-code (with notangle).
*documentation*: org-mode handles all of our documentation needs in
a manner that I believe is superior to noweb.
*source extraction* At this point I don't see anyone writing large
applications with 100% of the source code contained in org-babel
files, rather I see org-babel files containing things like
- notes with active code chunks
- interactive tutorials
- requirements documents with code running test suites
- and of course experimental reports with the code to run the
experiment, and perform analysis
Basically I think the scope of the programs written in org-babel
(at least initially) will be small enough that it wont require the
addition of a tangle type program to extract all of the source code
into a running application.
On the other hand, since we already have named blocks of source
code which reference other blocks on which they rely, this
shouldn't be too hard to implement either on our own, or possibly
relying on something like noweb/notangle.
** PROPOSED Create objects in top level (global) environment in R?
At the moment, objects created by computations performed in the