Hello Sebastien, "Sebastien Vauban" <sva-n...@mygooglest.com> writes:
> Hello Andreas, > > Andreas Leha wrote: >> The drop of the implicit naming of call lines, for example, was (and >> still will be for some of my files) a bigger issue. > > Could you remind me what's the problem you're talking of? Evaluating a #+call line used to produce a result block named with the name of the called code block and the arguments used. That is not the case any more. Something like (off the top of my head): --8<---------------cut here---------------start------------->8--- #+call: foo(bar=1) #+call: foo(bar=2) #+results: foo(bar=1) | the | results | #+results: foo(bar=2) | the | results | --8<---------------cut here---------------end--------------->8--- Now, one has to name the call line to get a named results block. I would not call it a problem, though. The change just meant that I had to introduce a lot of names for call lines in some of my files where I relied on that implicit naming of results. I know, that I have not adapted all affected files of mine. So, if ever I wanted to re-export these, I will need to do some more naming of call lines... All the best, Andreas
