>>> -- Is it possible to use #+lob: with ":results output org" ?
>>> -- Is it possible for #+lob: to take a string argument ?
>>
>> Both these were bugs, which are fixed in my development branch -- they
>> should be merged into org-core by Eric soon.
>
> Those changes are in the main org git repo
Dan Davison writes:
[...]
>>
>> -- Is it possible to use #+lob: with ":results output org" ?
>>
>> -- Is it possible for #+lob: to take a string argument ?
>
> Both these were bugs, which are fixed in my development branch -- they
> should be merged into org-core by Eric soon.
Those changes a
Hi Al,
emailorama writes:
[...]
> Also, I've been looking at #+lob: which looks like another
> really useful idea,
Yes, #+lob calls are the canonical way to "hide source code" in
org-babel; with this approach, source blocks are viewed more as function
definitions with arguments than as
Thanks very much for your reply Eric.
So the ":results org" feature was there all along.
Searching for "raw" in "org-babel.el" shows it's nicely
explained in the doc-string for "org-babel-insert-result".
(maybe I should have done that sooner)
I also noticed the ":results html
Thanks very much for your reply Eric.
So the ":results org" feature was there all along.
Searching for "raw" in "org-babel.el" shows it's nicely
explained in the doc-string for "org-babel-insert-result".
(maybe I should have done that sooner)
I also noticed the ":results html
Hi al,
This is currently possible by adding either "raw" or "org" to your
results headers. So the following should work.
#+srcname: demoruby
#+begin_src ruby :results output org
require 'date'
puts "* heading for demo"
puts "This demo done on #{Date.today}"
puts "Try to create a table in org-mod
The org-babel package looks very nice.
Thanks to Eric for doing this.
It seems to have so many possibilities.
I wonder, is it possible to get "inline" output ?
It seems to be very close to the existing option
":results output"
but would just put the output "inline" rather than in a
quoted bloc
