> > Then maybe #+results for (anonymous) results only, but #+name for anything > else from [1] and [3].
This seems like a reasonable approach. > Wasn't there a concept of linking a results block to its originiating > source block by some id and we need a place to put the checksum in. Not that I recall. > > So I see some arguments for treating results special. But for the > others I do not see pressing arguments against a common "name" at the > moment. However, I'd like to ask, what happens, if one refers to a > name of a source block where data is expected, does it then refer to > the results produced by that source block? How are such situations > handeled at the moment? Try it out, but be ready to press C-g, because I would guess that it results in an infinite loop. > In other words: is there any type checking? Type checking could be > facilitated by using different words, although I think that is not > neccessary, because there are other means to distinguish the type of a > block (look at the next line in the buffer). > No, there is no type checking in Babel, and the mere thought of implementing such a features leaves me exhausted. I think it is safe to allow users to shoot themselves in the foot if they so please. Cheers -- Eric > > Daniel -- Eric Schulte http://cs.unm.edu/~eschulte/
