From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Eric Schulte Subject: Re: [RFC] Standardized code block keywords Date: Tue, 25 Oct 2011 08:17:05 -0600 Message-ID: <8739eh3v57.fsf@gmail.com> References: <87pqhrih3s.fsf@gmail.com> <80obx6vniu.fsf@somewhere.org> <87vcrdyfhy.fsf@gmail.com> <201110250914.29233.DanielBausch@gmx.de> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Return-path: Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([140.186.70.92]:56708) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1RIjes-0004mL-QB for emacs-orgmode@gnu.org; Tue, 25 Oct 2011 12:15:24 -0400 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1RIjer-0003rf-4o for emacs-orgmode@gnu.org; Tue, 25 Oct 2011 12:15:22 -0400 Received: from mail-qy0-f176.google.com ([209.85.216.176]:48424) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1RIjer-0003rW-1n for emacs-orgmode@gnu.org; Tue, 25 Oct 2011 12:15:21 -0400 Received: by qyk30 with SMTP id 30so828224qyk.0 for ; Tue, 25 Oct 2011 09:15:20 -0700 (PDT) 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: Daniel Bausch Cc: Sebastien Vauban , emacs-orgmode@gnu.org > > Then maybe #+results for (anonymous) results only, but #+name for anything > else from [1] and [3]. This seems like a reasonable approach. > Wasn't there a concept of linking a results block to its originiating > source block by some id and we need a place to put the checksum in. Not that I recall. > > So I see some arguments for treating results special. But for the > others I do not see pressing arguments against a common "name" at the > moment. However, I'd like to ask, what happens, if one refers to a > name of a source block where data is expected, does it then refer to > the results produced by that source block? How are such situations > handeled at the moment? Try it out, but be ready to press C-g, because I would guess that it results in an infinite loop. > In other words: is there any type checking? Type checking could be > facilitated by using different words, although I think that is not > neccessary, because there are other means to distinguish the type of a > block (look at the next line in the buffer). > No, there is no type checking in Babel, and the mere thought of implementing such a features leaves me exhausted. I think it is safe to allow users to shoot themselves in the foot if they so please. Cheers -- Eric > > Daniel -- Eric Schulte http://cs.unm.edu/~eschulte/