Am Dienstag 25 Oktober 2011, 03:30:46 schrieb Eric Schulte: > "Sebastien Vauban" <wxhgmqzgw...@spammotel.com> writes: > > Hi Daniel, > > > > Daniel Bausch wrote: > >>> named code blocks [1] -- "source" "srcname" "function" > >>> > >>> calling external functions [2] -- "call" "lob" > >>> > >>> named data [3] -- "tblname" "resname" "results" "data" > >> > >> what about "#+name:" for [1] and [3], and "#+call:" for [2] ? > >> > >> That a table or list contains data is obvious. The only thing, the > >> additional line is for, is to "name" it. > > > > As Eric showed us, this is not always to name it... If the table is the > > results of an unamed block, you will have #+name: followed by no name! > > > > #+name: > > | line 1 | data1 | > > | line 2 | data2 | > > > > what I also find quite disturbing. > > I also find this to be disconcerting. -- Eric > > > Best regards, > > > > Seb
Then maybe #+results for (anonymous) results only, but #+name for anything else from [1] and [3]. Wasn't there a concept of linking a results block to its originiating source block by some id and we need a place to put the checksum in. So I see some arguments for treating results special. But for the others I do not see pressing arguments against a common "name" at the moment. However, I'd like to ask, what happens, if one refers to a name of a source block where data is expected, does it then refer to the results produced by that source block? How are such situations handeled at the moment? In other words: is there any type checking? Type checking could be facilitated by using different words, although I think that is not neccessary, because there are other means to distinguish the type of a block (look at the next line in the buffer). Daniel