[Question] Feature comparison with org-babel.

[gpanders]

[Question] Feature comparison with org-babel.

[gpanders]

So I'll be honest, I was all ready to turn this down as scope creep and claiming that it would add a lot of bloat, but it actually turns out that it was incredibly easy to implement and fit right in with the model that Medieval uses. I just pushed 2e96a19 that implements this feature. Please give it a try and re-open a new issue if you find any bugs!

[gpanders]

Re-implementing org-mode or even most of the features of org-mode in Vim is not a goal of vim-medieval, and for the most part I consider this plugin feature complete. That said, I do think the ability to target a buffer as the output of a code block could be useful, though I don't think this is exactly what you're asking about.

[nbCloud91]

I think I did not explain it correctly. When I said I want to replicate org-mode, I did NOT mean using one tool, I meant replication of each small part of org using different tools. (That is one of the arguments against using Emacs, that it is not very unixy). So when I asked about "feature parity" I did not mean feature parity with whole of org mode, but only feature parity with the org-babel part of it. Of course I do not expect vim-medieval to have all functionalities of org mode itself.
The specific feature of org-babel I was looking for, is tangling. Which allows for generation of source files in different languages from the code blocks within a markup document. See for example nvim-literate

[nbCloud91]

I just tested some simple stuff, working as expected! Thanks for implementing this feature.