From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Aaron Ecay Subject: Re: New patches WAS Re: [PATCH] inline src block results can be removed Date: Sun, 18 Jan 2015 17:55:04 -0500 Message-ID: <87egqritrr.fsf@gmail.com> References: <87egt81acy.fsf@gmail.com> <8761ejq9ek.fsf@nicolasgoaziou.fr> <87sihltt3v.fsf@selenimh.mobile.lan> <87zjbqrapy.fsf@nicolasgoaziou.fr> <874mrqjdlw.fsf@gmail.com> <87wq4lqcbh.fsf@nicolasgoaziou.fr> <87k30jj41u.fsf@gmail.com> <878ugzbtwc.fsf@nicolasgoaziou.fr> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Return-path: Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:55432) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1YCykP-0008CH-Va for emacs-orgmode@gnu.org; Sun, 18 Jan 2015 17:55:10 -0500 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1YCykM-0005qs-PT for emacs-orgmode@gnu.org; Sun, 18 Jan 2015 17:55:09 -0500 Received: from mail-qa0-x235.google.com ([2607:f8b0:400d:c00::235]:51272) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1YCykM-0005ov-Jq for emacs-orgmode@gnu.org; Sun, 18 Jan 2015 17:55:06 -0500 Received: by mail-qa0-f53.google.com with SMTP id n4so21885124qaq.12 for ; Sun, 18 Jan 2015 14:55:06 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: <878ugzbtwc.fsf@nicolasgoaziou.fr> 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: Nicolas Goaziou , "Charles C. Berry" Cc: mcg , Andreas Leha , emacs-orgmode@gnu.org, Ista Zahn Hi Nicolas, 2015ko urtarrilak 18an, Nicolas Goaziou-ek idatzi zuen: >=20 > Aaron Ecay writes: >=20 >> 2015ko urtarrilak 17an, Nicolas Goaziou-ek idatzi zuen: >>> It would be more flexible, but it would also defeat the whole point of >>> the "results" macro, that is to be able to mark /unambiguously/ the >>> output of an inline block. Indeed, even if you can get the name of the >>> macro from the parameter, you cannot be sure the macro was generated by >>> the code block, unlike to a results macro. >>=20 >> Well, you could examine the code block=E2=80=99s :wrap header arg to det= ermine >> what kind of macro it generates, rather than hardcoding =E2=80=9Cresults= .=E2=80=9D >> (This would break when :wrap=E2=80=99s value was changed, though). >=20 > As I said above, even if you read :wrap parameter, this is ambiguous, > since the use can insert any "foo" macro after a ":wrap foo": >=20 > src_emacs-lisp[:wrap foo]{(+ 1 1)} {{{foo(this is something else)}}} >=20 >> Probably a better solution is that the results macro could wrap the >> custom macro: >>=20 >> {{{results({{{mymacro(foo)}}})}}} >=20 > You cannot nest macros. OK, I didn=E2=80=99t know that. >=20 [...] > You probably can use some Babel code instead. Indeed, it looks like the system I had in mind wouldn=E2=80=99t work very w= ell. Thanks for this suggestion, I=E2=80=99ll look into it. Thanks, --=20 Aaron Ecay