Hello Charles, "Charles C. Berry" writes:
> RFC: the patch to `org-babel-remove-inline-result-one-or-many' removes > inline results, too. > > Do you see any bad consequences? > > On Fri, 30 Jan 2015, Daniele Pizzolli wrote: > >> Hello Charles, >> >> "Charles C. Berry" writes: >> >>> On Fri, 30 Jan 2015, Daniele Pizzolli wrote: >>> > > [discussion of extra whitespace bug deleted] > > There is now a bugfix on master. I've also added 'interactive' to > `org-babel-remove-inline-result'. > >> >>>> Is there a way to evaluate a buffer an then remove inline results or >>>> better, to get the very same buffer after: >> > > Yes. > > See attached patch which should clean *all* results (except `raw' > results) from a buffer when `org-babel-remove-result-one-or-many' is > called with a prefix. > > Before pushing this, I'd like some feedback on the wisdom of doing > what the patch does. Let me try to explain better my use case, that is not covered by this patch, but was covered by mine. Currently org-babel-remove-result has an optional argument to keep the named block results at their position. I will call this feature clean-result. I think that this is more useful that the default remove-result. The rationale is that removing the results will lead to some inconsistencies if you remove and re-execute the buffer, for details see: http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/emacs-orgmode/2013-09/msg00872.html So I will be happy if a native function take care of this use case. Maybe a new function with clean in the name instead of remove will solve this? Or it will add additional confusion as the inline sources are removed but the blocks cleaned... Also, I do not really see the point of having org-babel-remove-result-one-or-many, since the one case is already covered by org-babel-remove-result, but maybe there is some additional magic that I do not understand. [skip the discussion about my previous patch] >> Patch attached. > > Thank you. > > Regarding patches, if you haven't signed FSF copyright papers a > TINYCHANGE is needed in the commit message. Yes, there was a TINYCHANGE in the last line of the commit message! Best, Daniele
