emacs-orgmode
[Top][All Lists]
Advanced

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [O] Fwd: request regarding code chunk options in org-babel.


From: shripad sinari
Subject: Re: [O] Fwd: request regarding code chunk options in org-babel.
Date: Wed, 13 Mar 2013 11:14:14 -0700

Hello Eric,
The posted solution works. But the issue is that I have to do this a lot of times for selective code chunks in multiple documents. Writing the sexp each time is not very elegant. Besides, if I were to come up with some solution than I did not want  it to break anything else. Perhaps my question is still ambiguous and the right question should be does value of ":results" plist overrride the one from ":exports", i.e., is there any precedence order to the chunk options that is implicit, that i have not yet grasped from the documentation?

Thanks for your patience and help.
Regards,
Shripad.

Shripad
Tucson, AZ


On Wed, Mar 13, 2013 at 8:08 AM, Eric Schulte <address@hidden> wrote:
shripad sinari <address@hidden> writes:

> Hello all,
>  I have been using org-mode and particularly org-babel for reproducible
> research. From reading most of the code chunk options in the org manual
>  it seems that the follwoing table would be how one would expect output
> in various formats to behave:
>
> | :results value | :exports value | In Buffer | In PDF | Evaluation |
> |----------------+----------------+-----------+--------+------------|
> | silent         | results        | no        | yes    | yes        |
> | replace/other  | none           | yes       | no     | yes        |
> | silent         | none           | no        | no     | yes        |
>

Perhaps the documentation should be changed to more clearly express that
adding ":results silent" will inhibit insertion of results in the buffer
even during export.

>
> However from this thread:
> http://comments.gmane.org/gmane.emacs.orgmode/46625

Is there a reason that the solution posted in that thread does not work
for you?

Best,

>
>  it appears that this is not the case. Is there a way, to get this
> table to be valid out of the box? This might be useful.
>
> Please let me know.
> Thanks and regards,
>
> Shripad
> Tucson, AZ



reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]