From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Eric Schulte Subject: Re: words starting with call_ confuse C-c C-c and export Date: Tue, 11 Mar 2014 09:57:45 -0600 Message-ID: <87iorkn2x2.fsf@gmail.com> References: <87ob4ytoqf.wl%n142857@gmail.com> <87zjohvem7.fsf@gmail.com> <87iov16b3d.fsf@gmail.com> <87wqjhu5i1.fsf@gmail.com> <8761r14cjr.fsf@gmail.com> <87k3f7ad2w.fsf@gmail.com> <878uvl3if1.fsf@gmail.com> <87d2kxag62.fsf@gmail.com> <87wqj425kk.fsf@gmail.com> <878uvkag1p.fsf@gmail.com> <87mwh3t1jj.fsf@gmail.com> <87r46a2kmw.fsf@gmail.com> <87fvmqkt9s.fsf@gmail.com> <87a9cw3jwa.fsf@gmail.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Return-path: Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:50116) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1WNP5y-0003l7-4S for emacs-orgmode@gnu.org; Tue, 11 Mar 2014 12:00:03 -0400 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1WNP5r-0003xZ-Ph for emacs-orgmode@gnu.org; Tue, 11 Mar 2014 11:59:58 -0400 Received: from mail-pb0-x230.google.com ([2607:f8b0:400e:c01::230]:37062) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1WNP5r-0003xS-Jc for emacs-orgmode@gnu.org; Tue, 11 Mar 2014 11:59:51 -0400 Received: by mail-pb0-f48.google.com with SMTP id md12so8950768pbc.7 for ; Tue, 11 Mar 2014 08:59:49 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <87a9cw3jwa.fsf@gmail.com> (Nicolas Goaziou's message of "Tue, 11 Mar 2014 15:11:17 +0100") 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: Nicolas Goaziou Cc: emacs-orgmode@gnu.org, Eric Schulte >> >> Does this sound about right? > > Note there is no limitation on the contents of NAME keywords. Unless the > same limitation propagates to those (but should it?), Babel calls will > be ignored if forbidden characters are used. > I think it is more important that code block names resemble data names than macro names, so I'm afraid that I'm back to my original position of preferring to keep as many characters as possible in function names. Best, -- Eric Schulte https://cs.unm.edu/~eschulte PGP: 0x614CA05D