Re: [PATCH] Process hlines in imported tables

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

"Sebastien Vauban" <wxhgmqzgwmuf@spammotel.com> writes:

> Hi Achim,
>
> Achim Gratz wrote:
>> Rick Frankel writes:
>>> Missed verbatim. Thanks for the pointer, it works, but i think that
>>> perl is double-processing returned values. If we do the same things in
>>> elisp i get (my) expected results:
>>>
>>> #+begin_src elisp :results raw
>>>   "|c1|c2|
>>>   |-
>>>   |a|1|
>>>   |b|2|";
>>> #+end_src
>>
>> Elisp is different from all other languages: it doesn't do any
>> processing of strings to begin with for value returns.  The reason that
>> Perl processes "raw" results is that org-babel-result-cond does not
>> switch to the "scalar" path for this condition, which is why you need
>> the extra "verbatim".  It probably should, though, so if Eric agrees
>> then I will push a change that does this.
>
> IIUC, wouldn't that be changing the default answer to "how to interpret the
> results" just for Perl?  While the default answer for all languages seems to
> be "table"?
>

I would agree that this (meaning raw implies scalar) should either occur
for all languages or for none.  If we do have such header argument
implications, then we'd want to put them into the weakest portion of the
default header argument hierarchy.  Currently this hierarchy looks
something like

1. default header arguments shipped with Org-mode
2. user-set default header arguments
3. default languages-specific header arguments shipped with Org-mode
4. user-set default language-specific header arguments
5. buffer or file level header arguments
6. subtree header arguments
7. code block header arguments

I think this raw implies verbatim action should probably take place
somewhere between 3 and 4, but there could be arguments for other
positions.  Also, without looking at the code, I'm not sure how
difficult adding such implications would be.

Are there other header argument implication rules which would make code
blocks "do what I mean" more naturally in more situations?

Cheers,

>
> Best regards,
>   Seb

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