Hello, "Charles C. Berry" <ccbe...@ucsd.edu> writes:
> I like the flexibility that macros would allow. I like it too. Macros are much better than export snippets for the task. > I don't think the usual #+MACRO works here, as the definition would be > found in `org-macro-templates' by the first call and existing stuff > would be expanded instead of being left for babel to remove it. But > setting it up as a document keyword should work, right? > > Don't know if there are other gotchas. > > Maybe a limited collection of formats could be set up to support basic > markup options and the macro could choose amongst them with a second > arg set by a babel header arg. I think {{{results()}}} should remain a dumb wrapper itself and not try to do some formatting (i.e., a simple, hard-coded macro). Formatting should be on the side of Babel and, possibly, its arguments. Let's not duplicate features. > I am not quite sure how to marry this to header args. Maybe the :wrap > header arg should be hijacked for inline src blocks to specify a macro > for the results. Macro can be the default output. If you don't want a macro, use raw header. IOW, there is no need for a specific header arg. > I mean, does anyone actually use stuff like src_R[:wrap latex]{1+2}? > The current result cannot be parsed as an export block, AFAICS. It could evaluate to @@latex:3@@. Parsing can also be solved if necessary. Thanks for your work. Regards, -- Nicolas Goaziou