From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Andreas Leha Subject: Re: evaluation context in call statements Date: Thu, 27 Jun 2013 08:22:35 +0200 Message-ID: <87d2r8hy38.fsf@med.uni-goettingen.de> References: <444ea6cff489e2adc97092bdac881aef@mail.rickster.com> <878v1y574d.fsf@Rainer.invalid> <874ncm55ma.fsf@Rainer.invalid> <87r4fq3ptf.fsf@Rainer.invalid> <87ip11h2zq.fsf@gmail.com> <87fvw5fkpt.fsf@Rainer.invalid> <87k3lgewrv.fsf@gmail.com> <87bo6sqhir.fsf@Rainer.invalid> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Return-path: Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:48522) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1Us5bZ-0005W0-0C for emacs-orgmode@gnu.org; Thu, 27 Jun 2013 02:22:53 -0400 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1Us5bX-0007kj-Ru for emacs-orgmode@gnu.org; Thu, 27 Jun 2013 02:22:52 -0400 Received: from plane.gmane.org ([80.91.229.3]:37508) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1Us5bX-0007kW-Kv for emacs-orgmode@gnu.org; Thu, 27 Jun 2013 02:22:51 -0400 Received: from list by plane.gmane.org with local (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1Us5bU-0001J5-Vy for emacs-orgmode@gnu.org; Thu, 27 Jun 2013 08:22:48 +0200 Received: from genepi110.genepi.med.uni-goettingen.de ([134.76.140.110]) by main.gmane.org with esmtp (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Thu, 27 Jun 2013 08:22:48 +0200 Received: from andreas.leha by genepi110.genepi.med.uni-goettingen.de with local (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Thu, 27 Jun 2013 08:22:48 +0200 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 Hi all Achim Gratz writes: > Eric Schulte writes: >>>> My vote is for adding #+name support to call lines, and then handling >>>> their results in the same manner as code block results. >> >> Achim Gratz writes: >>> I'm not sure what this would entail other than replacing the call with >>> its arguments with the name of the call in the results line. But yes, >>> that'd be a step forward, although you'd have to be careful when copying >>> calls. >>> >> >> This could work exactly as named source blocks work. E.g., > [...] > > I see. The problem then really is that #+CALL lines are currently > "implicitly named" by copying their arguments to the results line. If > explicit naming is allowed, this implicit naming should go away or at > least not be the default, IMHO. > [ ... ] I did not follow this tread, so I just wanted to clarify: You are talking about making me to replace --8<---------------cut here---------------start------------->8--- #+call: number_of_sth(origin="dataset1") :results table #+call: number_of_sth(origin="dataset2") :results table --8<---------------cut here---------------end--------------->8--- with --8<---------------cut here---------------start------------->8--- #+name: call_number_of_sth_with_origin_dataset1 #+call: number_of_sth(origin="dataset1") :results table #+name: call_number_of_sth_with_origin_dataset2 #+call: number_of_sth(origin="dataset2") :results table --8<---------------cut here---------------end--------------->8--- ? Such change would make (some of) my orgmode files look rather complicated. The 'implicit' naming of call lines does make sense IMO, as all that may distinguish two call lines really are the arguments. I understand that there are problems with the current implementation of call lines. But I just want to say, that I would vote for not dropping the implicit naming of call lines -- but for fixing their problems instead. An explicit name overriding the default implicit name would be the preferable solution to me. Regards, Andreas