Hi Andreas, Andreas Leha wrote: > "Sebastien Vauban" <sva-n...@mygooglest.com> writes: >> Andreas Leha wrote: >>> how do I reference the results of a #+call line? >>> >>> Here are my unsuccessful attempts: >>> >>> * Test call results >>> >>> #+name: curdir >>> #+begin_src sh >>> echo "$PWD" >>> #+end_src >>> >>> #+results: curdir >>> : /home/andreas/tmp/junk/2013/11 >> >> Use the following: >> >> #+begin_src sh :var test=curdir() >> echo "$test" >> #+end_src > > thanks for that. I am aware of the workaround to use a full code block > instead. But my question still stands.
I don't understand what you mean: it's not a workaround, as you have to define your block once. Then, you simply use its name, instead of naming a call line, and using that name. You avoid one indirection, no? > I found out how to do it. Rather simple and straight forward, blush... > > For future reference here it is: > #+name: curdir > #+begin_src sh > echo "$PWD" > #+end_src > > #+results: curdir > : /home/andreas/tmp/junk/2013/11 > > #+name: curdircall > #+call: curdir() > > #+name: myname > #+results: curdircall > : /home/andreas/tmp/junk/2013/11 > > #+begin_src sh :var test=myname > echo "$test" > #+end_src I don't know if that's the solution, or simply a feature which works for now. I find this weird and unsound: - For code blocks, the results' name (curdir) is the code block's name (curdir). - For call lines, as you do above, you give another name to the results of a call line (myname) than the name of the call line itself (curdircall). This is not appealing to me, and confusing at least. Best regards, Seb -- Sebastien Vauban
