From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Christian Moe <mail@christianmoe.com>
Subject: Re: [Babel][Bug] Inconsistent output from babel function	depending
 on how called
Date: Thu, 26 May 2011 21:17:47 +0200
Message-ID: <4DDEA75B.4040601@christianmoe.com>
References: <BANLkTi=H9tasSwrPy6+JkSjeUz-J_DJtgw@mail.gmail.com>
	<87wrhdqozg.fsf@gmail.com>
Reply-To: mail@christianmoe.com
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Return-path: <emacs-orgmode-bounces+geo-emacs-orgmode=m.gmane.org@gnu.org>
Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([140.186.70.92]:33828)
	by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71)
	(envelope-from <mail@christianmoe.com>) id 1QPg3y-0002zt-7c
	for emacs-orgmode@gnu.org; Thu, 26 May 2011 15:17:42 -0400
Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71)
	(envelope-from <mail@christianmoe.com>) id 1QPg3x-0003AW-HW
	for emacs-orgmode@gnu.org; Thu, 26 May 2011 15:17:42 -0400
Received: from mars.hitrost.net ([91.185.211.18]:18879)
	by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71)
	(envelope-from <mail@christianmoe.com>) id 1QPg3x-0003AK-8v
	for emacs-orgmode@gnu.org; Thu, 26 May 2011 15:17:41 -0400
In-Reply-To: <87wrhdqozg.fsf@gmail.com>
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: </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: Eric Schulte <schulte.eric@gmail.com>
Cc: Ethan Ligon <ligon@are.berkeley.edu>, "Emacs-orgmode@gnu.org" <emacs-orgmode@gnu.org>


> No, this is expected (if possibly under-documented behavior).  The
> :results header arguments are associated with the code block and *not*
> with the #+call line.  To get the desired behavior, you must specify the
> :results header argument on the #+call: line thusly.
>
> #+call: print_list(lst=list1) :results output org
>
> Best -- Eric

Hi,

I recently made the same mistake, and it took me a while to figure 
things out. I had assumed #+CALLs inherited all the header arguments 
from the code blocks they referenced.

Regarding documentation, I see now that the correct behavior is at 
least implicitly documented in the first example at 
[[info:org#Header%20arguments%20in%20function%20calls]].

It might rate an explicit explanation at 
[[info:org#Evaluating%20code%20blocks]] as well, though.

Yours,
Christian