From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: tsd@tsdye.com (Thomas S. Dye) Subject: Re: babel output as LaTeX code: help please! Date: Tue, 10 Mar 2015 09:49:27 -1000 Message-ID: References: <871tkwn4sm.fsf@ucl.ac.uk> <87r3swll6a.fsf@ucl.ac.uk> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Return-path: Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:56168) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1YVQ9t-00038b-VD for emacs-orgmode@gnu.org; Tue, 10 Mar 2015 15:49:43 -0400 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1YVQ9q-0002eC-Q1 for emacs-orgmode@gnu.org; Tue, 10 Mar 2015 15:49:41 -0400 Received: from gproxy2-pub.mail.unifiedlayer.com ([69.89.18.3]:52109) by eggs.gnu.org with smtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1YVQ9q-0002e0-Ik for emacs-orgmode@gnu.org; Tue, 10 Mar 2015 15:49:38 -0400 Received: from [72.253.144.27] (port=55110 helo=manifi) by box472.bluehost.com with esmtpsa (TLSv1.2:AES128-GCM-SHA256:128) (Exim 4.82) (envelope-from ) id 1YVQ9j-0002uU-BO for emacs-orgmode@gnu.org; Tue, 10 Mar 2015 13:49:31 -0600 In-Reply-To: <87r3swll6a.fsf@ucl.ac.uk> (Eric S. Fraga's message of "Tue, 10 Mar 2015 19:14:21 +0000") List-Id: "General discussions about Org-mode." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: emacs-orgmode-bounces+geo-emacs-orgmode=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Sender: emacs-orgmode-bounces+geo-emacs-orgmode=m.gmane.org@gnu.org To: emacs-orgmode@gnu.org Aloha Eric, Eric S Fraga writes: > On Tuesday, 10 Mar 2015 at 08:42, Thomas S. Dye wrote: > > [...] > >> Have you tried >> >> #+call: drawlayout[:stdin solution]() :results raw >> >> or, >> >> #+call: drawlayout[:stdin solution]() :results latex >> >> which should make the print "#+begin_latex" etc. lines of drawlayout redundant? > > Both work perfectly. Many thanks! > > The documentation confused me. I see now that the end header arguments > are not to be enclosed in [] whereas the inside ones are. The > documentation shows this in the example but the syntax seems to imply > that the []s are required -- but in hindsight I guess the []s mean > optional in this case. However, they are not optional for the inside > arguments... > > Ummm, the documentation is definitely confusing but I'm not sure how to > improve it other than by adding a sentence making this explicit? Perhaps the confusion comes from the fact that the syntax for #+call lines differs from inline evaluation? Inline evaluation requires [] for the end header argument, but [] aren't used for the end header argument of #+call lines. I agree that this difference isn't easy to spot among all the ([<>]). Perhaps a sentence pointing out the difference would be useful? All the best, Tom -- Thomas S. Dye http://www.tsdye.com