Re: [O] [RFC] Standardized code block keywords

[Daniel Bausch]

Am Dienstag 25 Oktober 2011, 03:30:46 schrieb Eric Schulte:
> "Sebastien Vauban" <address@hidden> 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