Hi Dan
Right. Given the present forum I presume you are using emacs, so that
shouldn't be a problem per se?
Well, don't you think that telling other people that changing the _source_-code requires emacs might be a problem?
I think you may have formed an inaccurate idea of how people are working
with source code in org-mode.
maybe... and I have to admit my knowledge of LP is theoretical (but at least I investigated the sources of TeX long ago! :)
my idea for the beginning was to extend my codes with org-modes folding, linking and some TODO features in perl comments. Maybe automatically switching the mode when the cursor is entering/leaving comments.
Multiline wouldn't be a problem since I can include them in POD (perl's simplified approach to LP)
or I could embrace them in heredocs, for instance the following is legal perlcode as long as the last line is empty (no whitespaces allowed).
<<;
* block1
** [test] bla
> And relying on an extra step for code generation is dangerous...
You would have to explain that assertion.
Sorry, no offence intended, this is the common sense of perlmonks when talking about run time code generation and adding extra dependencies. (Maybe not the appropriate slang here...)
I wouldn't find many to join my projects when relying on extra make files and I suppose running emacs in batch mode to tangle the code is not that stable.
> This is for sure acceptable with elisp or multilanguage projects.
I didn't understand this.
emacs is a natural habitat of elisp , like unix is one for C.
And multilanguage projects would naturally rely on some make mechanisms.
> PS: I forgot to mention that when switching to other modes the highlighting
> will also get confused and fly-make will report plenty of syntax problems.
I'm not sure what you mean here. When working with code in org-mode, one
uses C-c ' to switch to a language major-mode buffer containing the body
of the source code block. Is that working OK for you?