Bastien <b...@altern.org> writes:
> Hi Eric,
>
> "Eric Schulte" <schulte.e...@gmail.com> writes:
>
>> #+begin_src sh :results list
>> echo "eric schulte"
>> echo "dan davison"
>> echo "seb vauban"
>> #+end_src
>>
>> #+results:
>> - ("eric" "schulte")
>> - ("dan" "davison")
>> - ("seb" "vauban")
>
> reading this, I wonder if we should consider use this instead:
>
> #+results:
> - ("eric" "schulte")
> - ("dan" "davison")
> - ("seb" "vauban")
> #+end
>
> or better:
>
> #+begin_results
> - ("eric" "schulte")
> - ("dan" "davison")
> - ("seb" "vauban")
> #+end_results
>
> Looks more consistent with the rest of the #+begin* statements.
>
This has come up before, and there are now options which allow wrapping
of results, e.g.,
#+begin_src emacs-lisp :results wrap :exports both
(mapcar (lambda (el) (list el (+ 1 (* el el)))) (number-sequence 0 10))
#+end_src
#+results:
#+BEGIN_RESULT
| 0 | 1 |
| 1 | 2 |
| 2 | 5 |
| 3 | 10 |
| 4 | 17 |
| 5 | 26 |
| 6 | 37 |
| 7 | 50 |
| 8 | 65 |
| 9 | 82 |
| 10 | 101 |
#+END_RESULT
I've just added documentation of the "wrap" header argument to the
manual.
>
> More generally, I've sometimes wondered why we need to use
>
> #+begin_*
> #+end_*
>
> instead of just
>
> #+begin_*
> #+end
>
> Unless we allow nested #+begin blocks (and AFAIK we don't), there
> is no real need for being specific about what #+end ends.
>
> What do you think?
I agree that (possibly aside from clarity) there is no real need for the
end block to specify its type. However as I use helper methods
(e.g. yasnippets) for all block creation, then extra characters
represent no real typing burden.
Best -- Eric
_______________________________________________
Emacs-orgmode mailing list
Please use `Reply All' to send replies to the list.
Emacs-orgmode@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/emacs-orgmode
