Re: [Orgmode] [babel] key binding requests

[Eric Schulte]

Hi Austin,

Austin Frank <address@hidden> writes:

> Hello!
>
> I'm loving the level of polish and sophistication that have been
> achieved with org-babel.  My entire PhD thesis is currently written in
> org and org-babel, and it's the best authoring system I've ever used.
>

Fantastic! happy to hear your finding it useful

>
> That said, I have a couple of features that I regularly find myself
> missing.  I wonder whether other folks might also find them useful.
>
> First, in terms of navigation, I would love to have keybindings under
> the C-c C-v prefix that would navigate to the next and previous babel
> blocks.  org-babel-goto-named-source-block[fn:1] is great, but a) not all my
> blocks are named, and b) I don't always remember the name of the block
> I'm looking for.  On that note...
>

Done, C-c C-v n and C-c C-v p now navigate to the next and previous code
blocks respectively.  C-c C-v p used to be used for viewing the expanded
body of a code block, this functionality is now behind C-c C-v v for
"view"

>
> Currently, org-babel-goto-named-source-block doesn't currently offer
> any completion facilities in my setup.  Is there a way to hook it into
> the rest of org's completion mechanisms so that I can hit tab to
> complete the names of my source blocks?
>

Done, C-c C-v g for "goto code block" now has completing read.  There is
also now C-c C-v r for "goto result" which also has completing reads

>
> Finally, to go along with facilities to navigate from source block to
> source block, I'd also make regular use of something like
> org-execute-src-block-and-step, which would execute the current block
> and then jump to the next (or previous) one.
>

There are already C-c C-v b and C-c C-v s for evaluating the current
buffer, or the current subtree respectively.  Also, with the new "goto
next code block" functionality it should be easy to implement the
behavior you describe in a short macro.

>
> Thanks again for these excellent tools,
> /au
>
> Footnotes:
>
> [fn:1] This is the only function that uses "source" instead of "src" in
> its name.  Should this be changed for consistency?

Thanks for pointing this out, I've made this change as well.

Thanks for all the great suggestions! -- Eric