>> 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 <Stromeko@nexgo.de> 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.,