Oops, sorry, I take back my last message, there was an error in my test
example.
Adding a #+NAME above the generated table DOES result in a correct
cross-reference. That seems like reasonable behavior to me.
Vikas, can you try this? Simply add a name to the generated table when
you also add a
Oops, sorry, I take back my last message, there was an error in my test
example.
Adding a #+NAME above the generated table DOES result in a correct
cross-reference. That seems like reasonable behavior to me.
The intended behaviour, as documented by Nicolas, is that a named
source block
Vikas Rawal writes:
Oops, sorry, I take back my last message, there was an error in my test
example.
Adding a #+NAME above the generated table DOES result in a correct
cross-reference. That seems like reasonable behavior to me.
The intended behaviour, as documented by Nicolas, is that a
Hello,
Vikas Rawal vikasli...@agrarianresearch.org writes:
Oops, sorry, I take back my last message, there was an error in my test
example.
Adding a #+NAME above the generated table DOES result in a correct
cross-reference. That seems like reasonable behavior to me.
The intended
cross-reference will pick that up correctly.
If #+RESULT is not to work, it is better to change
org-babel-results-keyword to NAME, and then what you are suggesting
happens automatically. But in the earlier thread on the topic, Nicolas
said that was not the right way.
We are
Vikas Rawal vikasli...@agrarianresearch.org writes:
cross-reference will pick that up correctly.
If #+RESULT is not to work, it is better to change
org-babel-results-keyword to NAME, and then what you are suggesting
happens automatically. But in the earlier thread on the topic, Nicolas
And then, we need to separately name the results block, and use
a different name for it, so that the cross-references pick it up
correctly?
Yes, the name given to the results block doesn't depend on the results
keyword. You can give it any name, as long as it is unique.
Here is an
