On Wed, Apr 06 2016, Nicolas Goaziou wrote:
> Hello,
>
> Daniele Pizzolli <d...@toel.it> writes:
>
>> is possible to update the “#+RESULTS: pid” when the block “#+NAME:
>> echo-pid” is evaluated in the following snippet?
>
> Without `org-babel-execute-buffer', I don't think so.
Hello,
Thanks Nicolas for the reply. Ok, but `org-babel-execute-buffer'
produces an inconsistent document right now.
>> This will lead to a consistent document generation with “M-x
>> org-babel-execute-buffer” or by hitting “C-c C-c” on “#+NAME:
>> echo-pid”.
>
> I'm not convinced that this behaviour should be enforced. If I C-c C-c
> on a block, I expect only the results of the block to be updated, not
> some other part of the document I am editing.
Mmm, the same reasoning can be used for arguing about the current
behaviour: If I C-c C-c on a block, I expect only the code of the
block to be executed, not some other part of the document I am
editing. This behaviour will fix my issue.
I agree that neither case should be enforced, but the user should be
in charge to choose. A reasonable default behaviour will be to not
re-execute the other code block if the previous result is already
present.
> Also, what if the other block is in another document? I don't think it
> should be updated either.
But should it be either executed?
> What is the harm in using `org-babel-execute-buffer' for your use case?
Right now it does not produce a consistent document, that should be
desirable.
I do not have a strong preference about the solution (reuse without
re-execute, or update the other result) but for sure, right now there
is no way to produce a consistent document.
I tried for a workaround, adding `:eval query'
#+NAME: pid
#+BEGIN_SRC shell :results value :cache no :eval query
printf '%s' "${$}"
#+END_SRC
and then discarding the execution, but instead of reusing the actual
result it pass `nil'... no luck.
Thanks again,
Daniele
