Achim Gratz <Stromeko@nexgo.de> 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 <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.,
> [...]
>
> 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.
>

Exactly.

I've just pushed up a patch which implements this change.  Call lines
should now work exactly as named code blocks providing clarity,
uniformity and the flexibility to run multiple identical call lines.