Achim Gratz <strom...@nexgo.de> writes: > Eric Schulte writes: >>>> My vote is for adding #+name support to call lines, and then handling >>>> their results in the same manner as code block results. >> >> Achim Gratz <strom...@nexgo.de> writes: >>> I'm not sure what this would entail other than replacing the call with >>> its arguments with the name of the call in the results line. But yes, >>> that'd be a step forward, although you'd have to be careful when copying >>> calls. >>> >> >> This could work exactly as named source blocks work. E.g., > [...] > > I see. The problem then really is that #+CALL lines are currently > "implicitly named" by copying their arguments to the results line. If > explicit naming is allowed, this implicit naming should go away or at > least not be the default, IMHO. >
Exactly. I've just pushed up a patch which implements this change. Call lines should now work exactly as named code blocks providing clarity, uniformity and the flexibility to run multiple identical call lines.
#+name: bar #+BEGIN_SRC emacs-lisp :baz #+END_SRC #+call: bar() #+RESULTS: : :baz #+call: bar() #+RESULTS: : :baz #+name: foo #+call: bar() #+RESULTS: foo : :baz #+name: foo2 #+call: bar() #+RESULTS: foo2 : :baz #+name: foo #+call: bar()
Cheers, -- Eric Schulte http://cs.unm.edu/~eschulte
