Hi,
Nicolas Goaziou <m...@nicolasgoaziou.fr> writes:
> Hello,
>
> "Charles C. Berry" <ccbe...@ucsd.edu> writes:
>
>> I like the flexibility that macros would allow.
>
> I like it too. Macros are much better than export snippets for the task.
>
>> I don't think the usual #+MACRO works here, as the definition would be
>> found in `org-macro-templates' by the first call and existing stuff
>> would be expanded instead of being left for babel to remove it. But
>> setting it up as a document keyword should work, right?
>>
>> Don't know if there are other gotchas.
>>
>> Maybe a limited collection of formats could be set up to support basic
>> markup options and the macro could choose amongst them with a second
>> arg set by a babel header arg.
>
> I think {{{results()}}} should remain a dumb wrapper itself and not try
> to do some formatting (i.e., a simple, hard-coded macro). Formatting
> should be on the side of Babel and, possibly, its arguments. Let's not
> duplicate features.
>
>> I am not quite sure how to marry this to header args. Maybe the :wrap
>> header arg should be hijacked for inline src blocks to specify a macro
>> for the results.
>
> Macro can be the default output. If you don't want a macro, use raw
> header. IOW, there is no need for a specific header arg.
>
>> I mean, does anyone actually use stuff like src_R[:wrap latex]{1+2}?
>> The current result cannot be parsed as an export block, AFAICS.
>
> It could evaluate to @@latex:3@@. Parsing can also be solved if
> necessary.
>
Without too much value to add to this thread at this point, I just want
to say, that I love the direction this thread has taken. There is
good reason now to hope for better inline results handling in org.
> Thanks for your work.
I second that! Thanks, Chuck!
Regards,
Andreas
