Achim Gratz <strom...@nexgo.de> writes: > Michael Brand <michael.ch.br...@gmail.com> writes: >> If the shell is a special case for babel anyway, why not something >> like the following? > > Ehm, no. But I think that it would be generally useful (not just for > shell blocks) to be able to capture stderr, either together with stdout > or separately into a result target block and have the return status > available as a variable (although that does not work for consecutive > invocations in a session). >
Hmm, I do think that a ":results stderr" option could be useful, however this would not be a trivial implementation as it may require adjustments to all of the language files. -- Eric Schulte http://cs.unm.edu/~eschulte/
