Re: [RFC] Standardized code block keywords

[Eric Schulte <schulte.eric@gmail.com>]

Nicolas Goaziou <n.goaziou@gmail.com> writes:

> Hello,
>
> Eric Schulte <schulte.eric@gmail.com> writes:
>
>> There are currently a number of instances of synonymous keywords when
>> dealing with code blocks, specifically.
>>
>>          named code blocks [1] -- "source" "srcname" "function"
>> calling external functions [2] -- "call" "lob"
>>                 named data [3] -- "tblname" "resname" "results" "data"
>>
>
> - Cases [1] and [2] : I'd suggest to drop all of them and to use "name",
>   shared by both source code and data. Is it really different to name
>   a source block or a list?
>

I think you mean [1] and [3] in the above, and I agree, these could
easily be the same term and "name" has a nice generality to it.
Although it is unintuitive in the case of un-named data, e.g.,

#+name:
| 1 |
| 2 |
| 3 |

looks weird to me.

>
> - Case [3] : I like "call". "lob" is too cryptic.
>

assuming you mean [2] above, I think call is emerging as the clear
winner in this case.

>
>> Are there cases where we want to continue to allow synonyms (e.g., in
>> named data so that "results" can be used for code block results but
>> "data" can be used for hand-written data)?
>
> No. One Keyword to name them all.
>

Noted, Thanks for the input -- Eric

>
> Regards,
>
> [1] DEFINITION NOT FOUND: 1
>
> [2] DEFINITION NOT FOUND: 3
>
> [3] DEFINITION NOT FOUND: 2

-- 
Eric Schulte
http://cs.unm.edu/~eschulte/