From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Erich Neuwirth Subject: Re: Inline and executing the document Date: Sun, 23 Sep 2012 19:02:16 +0200 Message-ID: <7C2CE242-C739-4343-B051-E2885BF4BB9A@univie.ac.at> References: <16F6A604-26D2-47CA-9E12-A7E5F17FF737@univie.ac.at> Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 6.1 \(1498\)) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Return-path: Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([208.118.235.92]:58788) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1TFpZW-0005jh-Se for emacs-orgmode@gnu.org; Sun, 23 Sep 2012 13:02:23 -0400 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1TFpZV-00021F-MT for emacs-orgmode@gnu.org; Sun, 23 Sep 2012 13:02:22 -0400 Received: from grace.univie.ac.at ([131.130.3.115]:54211) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1TFpZV-000201-9O for emacs-orgmode@gnu.org; Sun, 23 Sep 2012 13:02:21 -0400 Received: from justin.univie.ac.at ([131.130.3.111] helo=justin.univie.ac.at) by grace.univie.ac.at with esmtp (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from ) id 1TFpZS-00082R-8r for emacs-orgmode@gnu.org; Sun, 23 Sep 2012 19:02:18 +0200 Received: from p50892c98.dip.t-dialin.net ([80.137.44.152] helo=mercator.fritz.box) by justin.univie.ac.at with esmtpsa (TLSv1:AES128-SHA:128) (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from ) id 1TFpZS-0006O9-10 for emacs-orgmode@gnu.org; Sun, 23 Sep 2012 19:02:18 +0200 In-Reply-To: List-Id: "General discussions about Org-mode." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: emacs-orgmode-bounces+geo-emacs-orgmode=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Sender: emacs-orgmode-bounces+geo-emacs-orgmode=m.gmane.org@gnu.org To: "emacs-orgmode@gnu.org emacs-orgmode@gnu.org" One more thought: The :RESULTS: xxxx :END: wrapper would allow to replace when inline code is run once again. It would fit with my personal workflow to be able to check what will go = into the exported documents while fiddling around in the source document. If this does not fit with what the org designers think, thats OK. I just wanted to note that the implementation replacement of results of = inline code in this special case could probably done with ease. Erich On Sep 20, 2012, at 9:09 PM, Neuwirth Erich = wrote: > Thank you, > this clarified things for me! >=20 > I will look and suggest a place for mentioning this in the docs. >=20 > Erich >=20 >=20 > On Sep 20, 2012, at 4:23 PM, Neuwirth Erich = wrote: >=20 >> Sorry for not reading the docs carefully enough. >> I had overlooked :results wrap >> But even with this options things behave strangely. >>=20 >> src_emacs-lisp[:results wrap]{(+ 2 3)} :RESULTS: >> 5:END: >> :RESULTS: >> 5:END: >> :RESULTS: >> 5:END: >> :RESULTS: >> 5:END: >> :RESULTS: >> 5:END: >>=20 >>=20 >> Running the code multiple times in the document produces multiple = outputs. >> I though the whole idea of wrapping was intended to mark results in a = way the are replaces >> when the command is reexecuted. >>=20 >> Furthermore, on exporting the keywords :RESULTS: and :END: >> are written into the exported document (I tried LaTeX+pdf and HTML) >>=20 >> Am I still misunderstanding something? >>=20 >>=20 >>=20 >=20 >=20