From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Nicolas Goaziou <mail@nicolasgoaziou.fr>
Subject: Re: problems with export and :cache
Date: Thu, 29 Oct 2015 17:51:15 +0100
Message-ID: <87oafhoby4.fsf@nicolasgoaziou.fr>
References: <olu8u6mk730.fsf@med.uni-goettingen.de>
	<olu4mhak6qc.fsf@med.uni-goettingen.de> <87vb9pyf0l.fsf@gmail.com>
	<oluziz1iuw9.fsf@med.uni-goettingen.de>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain
Return-path: <emacs-orgmode-bounces+geo-emacs-orgmode=m.gmane.org@gnu.org>
Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:39351)
	by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71)
	(envelope-from <mail@nicolasgoaziou.fr>) id 1ZrqOP-0005Do-CI
	for emacs-orgmode@gnu.org; Thu, 29 Oct 2015 12:49:38 -0400
Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71)
	(envelope-from <mail@nicolasgoaziou.fr>) id 1ZrqOJ-00060A-Ka
	for emacs-orgmode@gnu.org; Thu, 29 Oct 2015 12:49:37 -0400
Received: from relay4-d.mail.gandi.net ([2001:4b98:c:538::196]:36381)
	by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71)
	(envelope-from <mail@nicolasgoaziou.fr>) id 1ZrqOJ-000603-EE
	for emacs-orgmode@gnu.org; Thu, 29 Oct 2015 12:49:31 -0400
In-Reply-To: <oluziz1iuw9.fsf@med.uni-goettingen.de> (Andreas Leha's message
	of "Thu, 29 Oct 2015 14:58:30 +0000")
List-Id: "General discussions about Org-mode." <emacs-orgmode.gnu.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/options/emacs-orgmode>,
	<mailto:emacs-orgmode-request@gnu.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/emacs-orgmode>
List-Post: <mailto:emacs-orgmode@gnu.org>
List-Help: <mailto:emacs-orgmode-request@gnu.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/emacs-orgmode>,
	<mailto:emacs-orgmode-request@gnu.org?subject=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: Andreas Leha <andreas.leha@med.uni-goettingen.de>
Cc: emacs-orgmode@gnu.org

Andreas Leha <andreas.leha@med.uni-goettingen.de> writes:

> Generally, I think that caching is a sensitive area.  And if we think
> that it is unpredictable and advise people to stay off of it, we are
> better off removing it than offering it in this state.  At least until
> it behaves (more) predictable.

Is it necessarily broken?

I mean, if the hash contains the current parameters and contents of the
current block, along with all hashes contents and parameters of related
code blocks (i.e., called or referenced in the block), shouldn't it be
predictable?

Regards,