[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [O] Source block processing changes
From: |
Ista Zahn |
Subject: |
Re: [O] Source block processing changes |
Date: |
Mon, 5 Nov 2012 13:45:32 -0500 |
Thank you Nicolas for your quick response!
On Mon, Nov 5, 2012 at 12:25 PM, Nicolas Goaziou <address@hidden> wrote:
> Hello,
>
> Ista Zahn <address@hidden> writes:
>
>> The only way I can get the headlines and tables to be exported
>> properly is to set ':results raw', but then I get duplicate results
>> every time I evaluate the R source block.
>
> You can use ":cache yes" in order to avoid duplicating results.
I gave up on using ':cache yes' a long time ago -- the problem is that
results don't update when the input data changes, as I describe here:
http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/emacs-orgmode/2010-09/msg01152.html
>
>> Is there any way to produce the old behavior in the current
>> development version of org?
>
> Besides using :results raw?
Yes, so that evaluating the result multiple times does not produce
duplicate output, while re-evaluating if the input data changes.
You may also generate a file containing your
> results and include it in the buffer.
This does work, but has the drawback that I can't see the output in my
main org buffer. This is one of the things that drew me away from
Sweave/Knitr, i.e., I could see both the code and the results in the
same buffer, without having to compile the document or switch to
another buffer.
>
>> If not, what are the chances of this very useful functionality being
>> re-implemented?
>
> I'd like to avoid re-implementing this hack, if possible. But if it had
> to be done, I think it would require to treat specially "begin_org"
> blocks during export by replacing them with their contents just before
> parsing (i.e. just after included files have been expanded).
>
> Hence,
>
> #+begin_src org
> ,* Headline
> #+end_src
>
> would become
>
> * Headline
>
> just before parser kicks in.
>
> But, again, let's see first if no solution can be found without creating
> yet another special case.
Yes, of course. Thanks again for considering my use-case!
Best,
Ista
>
>
> Regards,
>
> --
> Nicolas Goaziou
Re: [O] Source block processing changes, Ista Zahn, 2012/11/06