One more thought:
The :RESULTS: xxxx :END:
wrapper would allow to replace when inline code is run once again.
It would fit with my personal workflow to be able to check what will go into
the exported documents
while fiddling around in the source document.
If this does not fit with what the org designers think, thats OK.
I just wanted to note that the implementation replacement of results of inline
code
in this special case could probably done with ease.
Erich
On Sep 20, 2012, at 9:09 PM, Neuwirth Erich <erich.neuwi...@univie.ac.at> wrote:
> Thank you,
> this clarified things for me!
>
> I will look and suggest a place for mentioning this in the docs.
>
> Erich
>
>
> On Sep 20, 2012, at 4:23 PM, Neuwirth Erich <erich.neuwi...@univie.ac.at>
> wrote:
>
>> Sorry for not reading the docs carefully enough.
>> I had overlooked :results wrap
>> But even with this options things behave strangely.
>>
>> src_emacs-lisp[:results wrap]{(+ 2 3)} :RESULTS:
>> 5:END:
>> :RESULTS:
>> 5:END:
>> :RESULTS:
>> 5:END:
>> :RESULTS:
>> 5:END:
>> :RESULTS:
>> 5:END:
>>
>>
>> Running the code multiple times in the document produces multiple outputs.
>> I though the whole idea of wrapping was intended to mark results in a way
>> the are replaces
>> when the command is reexecuted.
>>
>> Furthermore, on exporting the keywords :RESULTS: and :END:
>> are written into the exported document (I tried LaTeX+pdf and HTML)
>>
>> Am I still misunderstanding something?
>>
>>
>>
>
>
