Hello,
"Charles C. Berry" <[email protected]> writes:
> I like the flexibility that macros would allow.
I like it too. Macros are much better than export snippets for the task.
> I don't think the usual #+MACRO works here, as the definition would be
> found in `org-macro-templates' by the first call and existing stuff
> would be expanded instead of being left for babel to remove it. But
> setting it up as a document keyword should work, right?
>
> Don't know if there are other gotchas.
>
> Maybe a limited collection of formats could be set up to support basic
> markup options and the macro could choose amongst them with a second
> arg set by a babel header arg.
I think {{{results()}}} should remain a dumb wrapper itself and not try
to do some formatting (i.e., a simple, hard-coded macro). Formatting
should be on the side of Babel and, possibly, its arguments. Let's not
duplicate features.
> I am not quite sure how to marry this to header args. Maybe the :wrap
> header arg should be hijacked for inline src blocks to specify a macro
> for the results.
Macro can be the default output. If you don't want a macro, use raw
header. IOW, there is no need for a specific header arg.
> I mean, does anyone actually use stuff like src_R[:wrap latex]{1+2}?
> The current result cannot be parsed as an export block, AFAICS.
It could evaluate to @@latex:3@@. Parsing can also be solved if
necessary.
Thanks for your work.
Regards,
--
Nicolas Goaziou
