From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: "Sebastien Vauban" Subject: Re: [RFC] Standardized code block keywords Date: Fri, 21 Oct 2011 10:27:22 +0200 Message-ID: <80d3dqvjf9.fsf@somewhere.org> References: <87pqhrih3s.fsf@gmail.com> <30891.1319141196@alphaville.dokosmarshall.org> <87fwinifqu.fsf@gmail.com> <32184.1319143892@alphaville.dokosmarshall.org> <808vofwf1w.fsf@somewhere.org> <87y5wfgwn7.fsf_-_@gmail.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Return-path: 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-mXXj517/zsQ@public.gmane.org Sender: emacs-orgmode-bounces+geo-emacs-orgmode=m.gmane.org-mXXj517/zsQ@public.gmane.org To: emacs-orgmode-mXXj517/zsQ@public.gmane.org Hi Torsten, Torsten Wagner wrote: > I tend to #+results: because it fits more to the entire babel syntax. > However, earlier on the mailing list people were pointing out that one > is going to change "results" for a unknown source block (that was the > reason "data" was introduced).... and I think this is a valid > argument. Maybe "data" and "results" should be both valid if only to > pleasure human thinking. However, if I understood correctly, maybe > data could be changed to be more some type of constant? That is, > #+data: foo can not be changed by a source code block named foo > (because it isn't a "result" but "data") but only by human (as a > "data" input). Does this make sense? Yes, #+results are automatically generated by execution of some code. But, if you want to start with something, not generated, you had to insert yourself a #+results block until the more logical #+data had been introduced. I like your explanation about the fact that such a manually-entered block is "constant". Best regards, Seb -- Sebastien Vauban