>
> OK. That's true I've set:
>
> --8<---cut here---start->8---
> ;; keep lower-case
> (setq org-babel-results-keyword "results")
> --8<---cut here---end--->8---
>
If you like you could let-bind this around any future test
Eric,
Eric Schulte wrote:
>> Here the patch you asked for.
>
> I've applied this patch.
Thanks a lot for reviewing my test, and fixing it!
> Please review the changes I had to make for it to work correctly. Your
> version wasn't working because when org-babel-execute-src-block was called
> the p
>
> Here the patch you asked for.
>
> Best regards,
> Seb
>
I've applied this patch. Please review the changes I had to make for it
to work correctly. Your version wasn't working because when
org-babel-execute-src-block was called the point was not inside of the
code block. My changes search
Hi Eric,
Eric Schulte wrote:
> "Sebastien Vauban" writes:
>> Eric Schulte wrote:
>>> "Sebastien Vauban" writes:
Eric Schulte wrote:
>> Extra question: tested with a sh block, both of the above do work, that
>> is
>> with strings or symbols. Which one is supposed to be better (t
"Sebastien Vauban" writes:
> Eric,
>
> Eric Schulte wrote:
>> "Sebastien Vauban" writes:
>>> Eric Schulte wrote:
> Extra question: tested with a sh block, both of the above do work, that is
> with strings or symbols. Which one is supposed to be better (that is,
> will be
> more
Eric,
Eric Schulte wrote:
> "Sebastien Vauban" writes:
>> Eric Schulte wrote:
Extra question: tested with a sh block, both of the above do work, that is
with strings or symbols. Which one is supposed to be better (that is, will
be
more portable with time), if there is one?
>>
"Sebastien Vauban" writes:
> Eric,
>
> Eric Schulte wrote:
>>> Extra question: tested with a sh block, both of the above do work, that is
>>> with strings or symbols. Which one is supposed to be better (that is, will
>>> be
>>> more portable with time), if there is one?
>>
>> Both will be mainta
Eric,
Eric Schulte wrote:
>> Extra question: tested with a sh block, both of the above do work, that is
>> with strings or symbols. Which one is supposed to be better (that is, will be
>> more portable with time), if there is one?
>
> Both will be maintained. The contribution of a test exercising
>
> Thanks for your help.
>
> Extra question: tested with a sh block, both of the above do work, that is
> with strings or symbols. Which one is supposed to be better (that is, will be
> more portable with time), if there is one?
>
Both will be maintained. The contribution of a test exercising bo
Hi Eric,
Eric Schulte wrote:
> "Sebastien Vauban" writes:
>> I'm trying to specify the column names of the table.
>>
>> #+name: input
>> | title | baz |
>> |---+-|
>> | obs1 | foo |
>> | obs2 | bar |
>>
>> But both versions (with symbols or strings) just do return the plain input
>> tab
"Sebastien Vauban" writes:
> Hi Eric,
>
> I'm trying to specify the column names of the table.
>
> #+name: input
> | title | baz |
> |---+-|
> | obs1 | foo |
> | obs2 | bar |
>
> But both versions (with symbols or strings) just do return the plain input
> table.
>
> #+name: R-echo-colna
Hi Eric,
I'm trying to specify the column names of the table.
#+name: input
| title | baz |
|---+-|
| obs1 | foo |
| obs2 | bar |
But both versions (with symbols or strings) just do return the plain input
table.
#+name: R-echo-colnames-list
#+begin_src R :var data=input :exports resul
12 matches
Mail list logo
