From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: "Eric Schulte" <schulte.eric@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [babel] Trouble with :cache yes
Date: Wed, 23 Mar 2011 12:03:58 -0600
Message-ID: <87tyetd88h.fsf@gmail.com>
References: <C9AF9DB6.285D2%ken.williams@thomsonreuters.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain
Return-path: <emacs-orgmode-bounces+geo-emacs-orgmode=m.gmane.org@gnu.org>
Received: from [140.186.70.92] (port=42570 helo=eggs.gnu.org)
	by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1Q2SPk-0000eA-Oz
	for emacs-orgmode@gnu.org; Wed, 23 Mar 2011 14:04:13 -0400
Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71)
	(envelope-from <schulte.eric@gmail.com>) id 1Q2SPj-00010M-Jj
	for emacs-orgmode@gnu.org; Wed, 23 Mar 2011 14:04:12 -0400
Received: from mail-iy0-f169.google.com ([209.85.210.169]:56670)
	by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71)
	(envelope-from <schulte.eric@gmail.com>) id 1Q2SPj-000104-GU
	for emacs-orgmode@gnu.org; Wed, 23 Mar 2011 14:04:11 -0400
Received: by iyf13 with SMTP id 13so11477603iyf.0
	for <emacs-orgmode@gnu.org>; Wed, 23 Mar 2011 11:04:11 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <C9AF9DB6.285D2%ken.williams@thomsonreuters.com> (Ken Williams's
	message of "Wed, 23 Mar 2011 12:54:53 -0500")
List-Id: "General discussions about Org-mode." <emacs-orgmode.gnu.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/emacs-orgmode>,
	<mailto:emacs-orgmode-request@gnu.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/emacs-orgmode>
List-Post: <mailto:emacs-orgmode@gnu.org>
List-Help: <mailto:emacs-orgmode-request@gnu.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/emacs-orgmode>,
	<mailto:emacs-orgmode-request@gnu.org?subject=subscribe>
Sender: emacs-orgmode-bounces+geo-emacs-orgmode=m.gmane.org@gnu.org
Errors-To: emacs-orgmode-bounces+geo-emacs-orgmode=m.gmane.org@gnu.org
To: Ken.Williams@thomsonreuters.com
Cc: emacs-orgmode@gnu.org, r.m.krug@gmail.com

<Ken.Williams@thomsonreuters.com> writes:

> On 3/23/11 12:28 PM, "Eric Schulte" <schulte.eric@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>Thanks for pointing this out, your example doesn't work for me either.
>>I tracked this down to a problem of not finding the cached results of
>>named code blocks.  I've just pushed up a simple fix for this issue, so
>>caching should now work as expected.
>
> Thanks Eric.  In my case I'm seeing the [mis]behavior even when the code
> block has no name - will your fix cover that case too?
>
>  -Ken

Hi Ken,

Could you send me a minimal example the demonstrates the misbehavior?

Thanks -- Eric