From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Martyn Jago Subject: Re: [bug][babel] #+call: execution broken Date: Fri, 18 Nov 2011 08:03:17 +0000 Message-ID: References: <87sjlmd8jk.fsf@gmail.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Return-path: Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([140.186.70.92]:58932) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1RRJQ7-0007vd-5D for emacs-orgmode@gnu.org; Fri, 18 Nov 2011 03:03:36 -0500 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1RRJQ5-0003hR-Vu for emacs-orgmode@gnu.org; Fri, 18 Nov 2011 03:03:35 -0500 Received: from lo.gmane.org ([80.91.229.12]:58837) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1RRJQ5-0003hE-OV for emacs-orgmode@gnu.org; Fri, 18 Nov 2011 03:03:33 -0500 Received: from list by lo.gmane.org with local (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1RRJQ4-0007vr-4V for emacs-orgmode@gnu.org; Fri, 18 Nov 2011 09:03:32 +0100 Received: from 88-96-171-138.dsl.zen.co.uk ([88.96.171.138]) by main.gmane.org with esmtp (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Fri, 18 Nov 2011 09:03:32 +0100 Received: from martyn.jago by 88-96-171-138.dsl.zen.co.uk with local (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Fri, 18 Nov 2011 09:03:32 +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 Eric Schulte writes: > Martyn Jago writes: > >> Hi >> >> C-c C-c on a #+call: block() statement no longer causes the block to >> execute. >> >> This regression occurred on Nov 8th: >> >> commit a4273cbe0e0480bd02c59464cafb985951b1c5a2 >> Author: Eric Schulte >> Date: Tue Nov 8 19:42:59 2011 -0700 >> call lines are more careful about being in example or verbatim blocks >> >> I've supplied a patch which provides a couple of failing tests which >> highlight the problem. >> > > Hi Martyn, > > The reason that your tests are failing is because they use the old > "#+srcname:" rather than the new "#+name:" syntax for naming a code > block. > > After making this change both tests pass. > Doh! Clearly I need to keep up with the times. Best, Martyn