From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Nick Dokos Subject: Re: Controlling image width and placement in Beamer export Date: Wed, 27 Nov 2013 08:51:17 -0500 Message-ID: <87ob56kl62.fsf@gmail.com> References: <87haazb79c.fsf@syk.fi> <8738miuzng.fsf@syk.fi> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Return-path: Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:42848) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1VlfaE-0007iP-Oy for emacs-orgmode@gnu.org; Wed, 27 Nov 2013 08:55:20 -0500 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1Vlfa7-0008N7-2K for emacs-orgmode@gnu.org; Wed, 27 Nov 2013 08:55:14 -0500 Received: from plane.gmane.org ([80.91.229.3]:45092) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1Vlfa6-0008Hv-RY for emacs-orgmode@gnu.org; Wed, 27 Nov 2013 08:55:06 -0500 Received: from list by plane.gmane.org with local (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1Vlfa4-0002a5-1q for emacs-orgmode@gnu.org; Wed, 27 Nov 2013 14:55:04 +0100 Received: from pool-108-7-96-134.bstnma.fios.verizon.net ([108.7.96.134]) by main.gmane.org with esmtp (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Wed, 27 Nov 2013 14:55:04 +0100 Received: from ndokos by pool-108-7-96-134.bstnma.fios.verizon.net with local (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Wed, 27 Nov 2013 14:55:04 +0100 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 Jarmo Hurri writes: > Greetings John. > > John Hendy writes: > >> This comes up all the time. > > Perhaps we could lower the frequency by making a small change to the > manual? > >> The key is to put it 1) before results (as you've done) and 2) to use >> a named source block (with #+name: foo above your babel code) so that >> Org knows what the results block actually is. Otherwise, as you >> currently have it, if you re-run the babel block, you'll keep the >> results section you already have and it will spit out another one >> below it since it no longer recognizes that the babel block and >> current, modified results block go together. > > Done. For some reason not doing 2) also worked correctly, but I agree > that it is still a good idea to name the blocks. > Yes, Eric fixed that problem some months ago, so the urgency of naming code blocks has gone way down - but it should still be considered "best practice" imo. -- Nick