Hello,
Aaron Ecay <aarone...@gmail.com> writes:
>> (funcall wrap (concat "#+BEGIN_" name)
>> - (concat "#+END_" (car (org-split-string name))))))
>> + (concat "#+END_" (car (org-split-string name)))
>> + nil nil (concat "{{{results(@@" name ":")
>> "@@)}}}")))
>
> I think it would be more flexible to allow :wrap to change the name of
> the macro which is used, rather than to insert an export snippet. If a
> custom export snippet is desired, this could be specified via the custom
> macro name – but the macro could also supply other special formatting.
> (This suggestion would impact the wording of the docstring addition
> suggested above.) WDYT?
It would be more flexible, but it would also defeat the whole point of
the "results" macro, that is to be able to mark /unambiguously/ the
output of an inline block. Indeed, even if you can get the name of the
macro from the parameter, you cannot be sure the macro was generated by
the code block, unlike to a results macro.
Also, I don't think we really need this flexibility since any twist to
the output can be made at the Babel level, or even using
`org-babel-inline-result-wrap'.
Regards,
--
Nicolas Goaziou
