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

[Eric Schulte]

>
> Then maybe #+results for (anonymous) results only, but #+name for anything 
> else from [1] and [3].

This seems like a reasonable approach.

> 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.

Not that I recall.

> 
> 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?

Try it out, but be ready to press C-g, because I would guess that it
results in an infinite loop.

> 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).
>

No, there is no type checking in Babel, and the mere thought of
implementing such a features leaves me exhausted.  I think it is safe to
allow users to shoot themselves in the foot if they so please.

Cheers -- Eric

>
> Daniel

-- 
Eric Schulte
http://cs.unm.edu/~eschulte/