"Sebastien Vauban" <wxhgmqzgw...@spammotel.com> writes: > Hi Eric, > > "Sebastien Vauban" wrote: >> Eric Schulte wrote: >>> I would agree that this (meaning raw implies scalar) should either occur >>> for all languages or for none. >> >> I think this is something interesting, but I wonder now if we wouldn't loose >> more than we would win. I mean: how would one be able to output a real "raw" >> result, then, that is one where pipes are not interpreted as table field >> separator which have to be aligned in some specific way. >> >> Do we need another argument for that? >> >> I mean: at the end, raw should really be raw (no interpretation). If we want >> some cycling for table alignment purpose (BTW, do you have lots of such code >> blocks?), maybe it'd be better to introduce a `cycle' argument or so? > > I think that this portion of my post has been ignored in your answers -- which > I still have to carefully look at. > > Though, I don't think the above question should stay unanswered: if you now > "cycle" on all "raw" results, how do we insert real "raw" results for which we > don't want any interpretation (not even cycling tables, or what you be > confounded as tables)? >
Is this a hypothetical problem or do you have a use case which requires non-cycling? -- Eric Schulte http://cs.unm.edu/~eschulte
