From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Eric S Fraga <e.fraga@ucl.ac.uk>
Subject: Re: [RFC] new :post header argument for post-processing of code
 block results
Date: Tue, 16 Apr 2013 13:47:29 +0100
Message-ID: <87y5ci8wwu.fsf@ucl.ac.uk>
References: <87bo9zoxqd.fsf@gmail.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain
Return-path: <emacs-orgmode-bounces+geo-emacs-orgmode=m.gmane.org@gnu.org>
Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([208.118.235.92]:52274)
	by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71)
	(envelope-from <e.fraga@ucl.ac.uk>) id 1US6Jb-00063z-Iv
	for emacs-orgmode@gnu.org; Tue, 16 Apr 2013 09:52:58 -0400
Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71)
	(envelope-from <e.fraga@ucl.ac.uk>) id 1US6GW-0002N2-1c
	for emacs-orgmode@gnu.org; Tue, 16 Apr 2013 09:49:48 -0400
Received: from ch1ehsobe003.messaging.microsoft.com ([216.32.181.183]:48859
	helo=ch1outboundpool.messaging.microsoft.com)
	by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71)
	(envelope-from <e.fraga@ucl.ac.uk>) id 1US5wP-0003dp-Gj
	for emacs-orgmode@gnu.org; Tue, 16 Apr 2013 09:28:57 -0400
In-Reply-To: <87bo9zoxqd.fsf@gmail.com> (Eric Schulte's message of "Sun, 31
	Mar 2013 19:17:46 -0600")
List-Id: "General discussions about Org-mode." <emacs-orgmode.gnu.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/options/emacs-orgmode>,
	<mailto:emacs-orgmode-request@gnu.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/emacs-orgmode>
List-Post: <mailto:emacs-orgmode@gnu.org>
List-Help: <mailto:emacs-orgmode-request@gnu.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/emacs-orgmode>,
	<mailto:emacs-orgmode-request@gnu.org?subject=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: Eric Schulte <schulte.eric@gmail.com>
Cc: Org Mode Mailing List <emacs-orgmode@gnu.org>

Eric Schulte <schulte.eric@gmail.com> writes:

> Hi,
>
> I've been wanting to add the ability to post-process the results of a
> code block for some time, and some recent threads (e.g., [1] and [2])
> could both have benefited from post-processing of code block output.

[...]

> Does this new header argument seem useful?  Any suggestions for better
> syntax which don't add too much conceptual or code complexity?

Very useful indeed!  I don't have a chance to try this out properly now
but I know of several previous org files where this would have been very
useful.

One question: can one have a sequence of forward chained blocks with
length > 2?

Thanks,
eric
-- 
: Eric S Fraga, GnuPG: 0xC89193D8FFFCF67D
: in Emacs 24.3.50.1 and Org release_7.9.3f-1199-g3a0e55