Re: New patches WAS Re: [PATCH] inline src block results can be removed

[Aaron Ecay <aaronecay@gmail.com>]

Hi Chuck,

Thanks for the patches.

I agree with Nicolas about the issue of multi-line results for inline
blocks.  I think he already raised any comments I would have made about
the code.  Additional comments about broader issues:

2015ko urtarrilak 12an, "Charles C. Berry"-ek idatzi zuen:
>  (defun org-babel-insert-result
>    (result &optional result-params info hash indent lang)
>    "Insert RESULT into the current buffer.

It’s not strictly speaking relevant to your patch, but it would be good to
put a couple sentences about the :wrap header arg in this docstring.  I
think it could go at the end, and read something like “Specifying a :wrap
header argument will wrap the result in a #+begin_/#+end_ block or (for
inline source blocks) an export snippet whose type is determined by the
value of the argument (with a default of "results").  The specification of
:wrap overrides the :result values described above.”

[...]

>  drawer -- results are added directly to the Org-mode file as with
> -          \"raw\", but are wrapped in a RESULTS drawer, allowing
> -          them to later be replaced or removed automatically.
> +          \"raw\", but are wrapped in a RESULTS drawer or results
> +          macro, allowing them to later be replaced or removed
> +          automatically.
>

I think it’s worth changing the name of this option, now that it no
longer creates a drawer in all cases.  Perhaps raw-wrap could be used.
(Of course, drawer would be retained as a backwards compatibility alias,
preferably with a comment in the code describing when and why it was
deprecated.)  This would also require changes to the manual.

[...]

>  		    (funcall wrap (concat "#+BEGIN_" name)
> -			     (concat "#+END_" (car (org-split-string name))))))
> +			     (concat "#+END_" (car (org-split-string name)))
> +			     nil nil (concat "{{{results(@@" name ":") "@@)}}}")))

I think it would be more flexible to allow :wrap to change the name of
the macro which is used, rather than to insert an export snippet.  If a
custom export snippet is desired, this could be specified via the custom
macro name – but the macro could also supply other special formatting.
(This suggestion would impact the wording of the docstring addition
suggested above.)  WDYT?

Especially the first two of these suggestions are things I (or anyone)
could implement in further patches, if you’d rather not take them on at
present.

Thanks,
 
-- 
Aaron Ecay