From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: "Sebastien Vauban" Subject: Re: [RFC] Standardized code block keywords Date: Mon, 24 Oct 2011 09:47:53 +0200 Message-ID: <80obx6vniu.fsf@somewhere.org> References: <87pqhrih3s.fsf@gmail.com> <87aa8u5mu7.fsf@gmail.com> <871uu65j7i.fsf@gmail.com> <201110231442.17386.DanielBausch@gmx.de> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Return-path: 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-mXXj517/zsQ@public.gmane.org Sender: emacs-orgmode-bounces+geo-emacs-orgmode=m.gmane.org-mXXj517/zsQ@public.gmane.org To: emacs-orgmode-mXXj517/zsQ@public.gmane.org Hi Daniel, Daniel Bausch wrote: >> named code blocks [1] -- "source" "srcname" "function" >> calling external functions [2] -- "call" "lob" >> named data [3] -- "tblname" "resname" "results" "data" > > what about "#+name:" for [1] and [3], and "#+call:" for [2] ? > > That a table or list contains data is obvious. The only thing, the additional > line is for, is to "name" it. As Eric showed us, this is not always to name it... If the table is the results of an unamed block, you will have #+name: followed by no name! #+name: | line 1 | data1 | | line 2 | data2 | what I also find quite disturbing. Best regards, Seb -- Sebastien Vauban