From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Andreas Leha Subject: Re: [RFC] new :post header argument for post-processing of code block results Date: Tue, 16 Apr 2013 22:42:07 +0200 Message-ID: <877gk28axs.fsf@med.uni-goettingen.de> References: <87bo9zoxqd.fsf@gmail.com> <87y5ci8wwu.fsf@ucl.ac.uk> <87mwsycxaa.fsf@gmail.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Return-path: Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([208.118.235.92]:36112) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1USChk-0005GM-Qq for emacs-orgmode@gnu.org; Tue, 16 Apr 2013 16:42:17 -0400 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1USChj-0001PO-GT for emacs-orgmode@gnu.org; Tue, 16 Apr 2013 16:42:16 -0400 Received: from plane.gmane.org ([80.91.229.3]:45693) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1USChj-0001PF-Aa for emacs-orgmode@gnu.org; Tue, 16 Apr 2013 16:42:15 -0400 Received: from list by plane.gmane.org with local (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1USChi-0000aL-Ec for emacs-orgmode@gnu.org; Tue, 16 Apr 2013 22:42:14 +0200 Received: from vpn-2057.gwdg.de ([134.76.2.57]) by main.gmane.org with esmtp (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Tue, 16 Apr 2013 22:42:14 +0200 Received: from andreas.leha by vpn-2057.gwdg.de with local (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Tue, 16 Apr 2013 22:42:14 +0200 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: > Eric S Fraga writes: > >> Eric Schulte writes: >> >>> Hi, >>> >>> I've been wanting to add the ability to post-process the results of a >>> code block for some time, and some recent threads (e.g., [1] and [2]) >>> could both have benefited from post-processing of code block output. >> >> [...] >> >>> Does this new header argument seem useful? Any suggestions for better >>> syntax which don't add too much conceptual or code complexity? >> >> Very useful indeed! I don't have a chance to try this out properly now >> but I know of several previous org files where this would have been very >> useful. >> > > Great, I'm happy I wasn't the only one. > No, you were not. Adding lines to tables is one of the cases, I will use that cool feature from now on. Regards, Andreas