unified concept of function calls.
Previously LoB calls were not able to produce results in the
buffer. These changes go some way to allowing them to do that. [There
are still some bugs to deal with]. That meant changing org-babel.el so
that there is a notion of the `source block name' for a LoB line, in
order to construct a #+resname (currently I've made the name the same
as the function call).
I'm also slowly moving towards unifying the notion of `function calls'
a bit more: I've changed the org-babel-lob-one-liner-regexp so that
instead of a monolithic match it now matches first the function name,
and second the function arguments in
parentheses. org-babel-lob-get-info makes that match, and although it
still concatenates them and returns the string, the two elements can
be accessed immediately afterwards using match-string. So that
situation is very similar to org-babel-get-src-block-name, whose
job (in this branch) is also to parse the function *name* and the
function *arguments*. In a few places in the code (esp. function
names), I think the word `info' should be replaced with `call' or
`function call', which I believe more accurately indicates what the
`info' is: a function definition, together with bound
arguments/references.
The function call syntax, i.e. function-name(arg1=ref1), originally
introduced for references (and thereby in LoB), and which I'm
proposing we use throughout, raises the question of default arguments,
and those being over-ridden by supplied arguments, as in e.g. python,
and R.
This is intended to provide off-the-shelf data plotting and analysis
functions. Current idea is to introduce a new line, perhaps something
like #+babel or #+babel_lib, which will reference (a) some data
and (b) a source block to apply to the data. Code being stolen from
org-babel.el (conceivably some abstraction of some of those functions
could be done to avoid code duplication).
Dan Davison
Eric Schulte