Re: Closing #+results: with #+end declaration?

["Eric Schulte" <schulte.eric@gmail.com>]

Bastien <bzg@altern.org> writes:

> Hi Eric,
>
> "Eric Schulte" <schulte.eric@gmail.com> writes:
>
>> #+begin_src sh :results list
>>   echo "eric schulte"
>>   echo "dan davison"
>>   echo "seb vauban"
>> #+end_src
>>
>> #+results:
>> - ("eric" "schulte")
>> - ("dan" "davison")
>> - ("seb" "vauban")
>
> reading this, I wonder if we should consider use this instead:
>
> #+results:
> - ("eric" "schulte")
> - ("dan" "davison")
> - ("seb" "vauban")
> #+end
>
> or better:
>
> #+begin_results
> - ("eric" "schulte")
> - ("dan" "davison")
> - ("seb" "vauban")
> #+end_results
>
> Looks more consistent with the rest of the #+begin* statements.
>

This has come up before, and there are now options which allow wrapping
of results, e.g.,

#+begin_src emacs-lisp :results wrap :exports both
  (mapcar (lambda (el) (list el (+ 1 (* el el)))) (number-sequence 0 10))
#+end_src

#+results:
#+BEGIN_RESULT
|  0 |   1 |
|  1 |   2 |
|  2 |   5 |
|  3 |  10 |
|  4 |  17 |
|  5 |  26 |
|  6 |  37 |
|  7 |  50 |
|  8 |  65 |
|  9 |  82 |
| 10 | 101 |
#+END_RESULT

I've just added documentation of the "wrap" header argument to the
manual.

>
> More generally, I've sometimes wondered why we need to use
>
> #+begin_*
> #+end_*
>
> instead of just
>
> #+begin_*
> #+end
>
> Unless we allow nested #+begin blocks (and AFAIK we don't), there 
> is no real need for being specific about what #+end ends.
>
> What do you think?

I agree that (possibly aside from clarity) there is no real need for the
end block to specify its type.  However as I use helper methods
(e.g. yasnippets) for all block creation, then extra characters
represent no real typing burden.

Best -- Eric