Aaron Ecay <aaronecay@gmail.com> writes:

> Hi Rainer,
>
> 2015ko martxoak 9an, Rainer M Krug-ek idatzi zuen:
>>
>> Hi
>>
>> Consider the following:
>>
>> --8<---------------cut here---------------start------------->8---
>> * The calculation
>> #+NAME: testcode :exports both
>
> It looks like you’ve tried to put a header argument into the name.  Is
> it merely an accident?  I ask because...

Accident - the header argument should be behind the code block beginning
and not the NAME - sorry.

>
>> #+begin_src R  :session test
>> runif(10)
>> #+end_src
>>
>>
>> * summary of the results
>> First time
>> #+RESULTS: testcode :exports both
>> |  0.772744940361008 |
>> |  0.170518629485741 |
>> | 0.0833237133920193 |
>> |  0.149035625392571 |
>> |  0.698798568220809 |
>> |  0.627075897762552 |
>> |  0.177144371205941 |
>> | 0.0476319056469947 |
>> |  0.289851602632552 |
>> | 0.0296813279855996 |
>>
>> * and another
>> testthingy
>> #+RESULTS: testcode :exports both
>
> ...here it reoccurs, in identical format.  This is fine, interpreted
> as just a weird block name (and not as an actual header argument).
> But if you’re trying to allow the header arguments to vary for the two
> result blocks I don’t think it will be very nice.  (It would require
> re-evaluating the code block for each different combination of header
> arguments, which would give unexpected behavior in the case of side
> effects, etc. etc.)

I think I clud do this by using =#+CALL testcode= but this is not w=hat
I wanted.

>
> Maybe it’s not very important, but I just figured I’d ask for
> clarification.

Sure - I should be looking more carefully when typing.

Is my brain really that slow, as I am not a fast typer...

Cheers,

Rainer

>
> Thanks,
>
> --
> Aaron Ecay
>
>

-- 
Rainer M. Krug
email: Rainer<at>krugs<dot>de
PGP: 0x0F52F982