From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Eric Schulte Subject: Re: evaluation context in call statements Date: Wed, 26 Jun 2013 08:54:42 -0600 Message-ID: <87ehboewrr.fsf@gmail.com> References: <444ea6cff489e2adc97092bdac881aef@mail.rickster.com> <878v1y574d.fsf@Rainer.invalid> <874ncm55ma.fsf@Rainer.invalid> <87r4fq3ptf.fsf@Rainer.invalid> <87ip11h2zq.fsf@gmail.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Return-path: Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:38259) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1UrrKM-0004fT-Lt for emacs-orgmode@gnu.org; Wed, 26 Jun 2013 11:08:12 -0400 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1UrrKL-0002QV-7E for emacs-orgmode@gnu.org; Wed, 26 Jun 2013 11:08:10 -0400 Received: from mail-pb0-x231.google.com ([2607:f8b0:400e:c01::231]:63848) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1UrrKL-0002QR-11 for emacs-orgmode@gnu.org; Wed, 26 Jun 2013 11:08:09 -0400 Received: by mail-pb0-f49.google.com with SMTP id jt11so14347550pbb.36 for ; Wed, 26 Jun 2013 08:08:08 -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: Michael Brand Cc: Achim Gratz , Org Mode Michael Brand writes: > Hi Eric > > On Wed, Jun 26, 2013 at 12:41 AM, Eric Schulte wrote: >> I think we could be well served by discussing how people use call lines, >> how they would use call lines (if this behavior changed), and what >> behavior would best support these existing and potential use cases. > > You did not yet answer to what I asked you about more than one call > with the same arguments: > http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.emacs.orgmode/72513/focus=73547 > They will overwrite eachother's results. We are currently discussing alternatives which would change this behavior. > >> In defense of the existing behavior, I don't see the benefit of calling >> a code block with the same arguments from multiple locations and >> subsequently littering a file with multiple identical results blocks. > > Such result blocks do not have to be necessarily identical. What would > you suggest for these examples?: > > 1) It could be just me feeling like to be on the playground: > ------------------------------------------------------------------- > #+NAME: i_am_curious_how_this_works > #+BEGIN_SRC emacs-lisp > (format "%s" org-babel-current-src-block-location) > #+END_SRC > > #+CALL: i_am_curious_how_this_works() > > #+RESULTS: i_am_curious_how_this_works() > : # > #+CALL: i_am_curious_how_this_works() > > (Here I expect to see the result "#".) > ------------------------------------------------------------------- > This works as expected. Depending on the call line executed, I get different points in the second results. > > 2) My use case mentioned at the beginning of this message. > Currently if you want have separate results for call lines with the same variables you will need to use a dummy variable. I'd suggest an OS variable if you are running them on different operating systems. > > Michael -- Eric Schulte http://cs.unm.edu/~eschulte