Re: [RFC] Standardized code block keywords

[Nick Dokos <nicholas.dokos@hp.com>]

Thomas S. Dye <tsd@tsdye.com> wrote:

> Eric Schulte <schulte.eric@gmail.com> writes:
> 
> >> [1] I have the same "annoying" feelings with #+SOURCE, #+SRCNAME, #+FUNCTION,
> >> #+CALL, #+LOB, and SBE, some of which are interchangeable; some
> >> not. I'd prefer
> >> deprecating an old form when a better one is found.
> >
> > This point of view has been raised previously both on the mailing list
> > and in the #org-mode IRC chat room.  I think it is time that we decided
> > as a community what we want to do about the prevalence of code block
> > synonyms -- we should make this decision before the release of Emacs24
> > after which syntax will become harder to change.
> >
> > There are currently a number of instances of synonymous keywords when
> > dealing with code blocks, specifically.
> >
> >          named code blocks [1] -- "source" "srcname" "function"
> > calling external functions [2] -- "call" "lob"
> >                 named data [3] -- "tblname" "resname" "results" "data"
> >
> > Ideally if we limit each of the above to only one alternative we could
> > simplify the specification of code blocks in Org-mode making them easier
> > to learn and use and removing some of the mystery around their syntax.
> >
> > What does everyone think?
> >
> > Are there suggestions for the best names for each code block entity
> > (either in the list or not in the list)?
> >
> > Are there cases where we want to continue to allow synonyms (e.g., in
> > named data so that "results" can be used for code block results but
> > "data" can be used for hand-written data)?
> >
> > Thanks -- Eric
> >
> > Footnotes: 
> > [1] named code blocks
> >
> >     #+source: foo
> >     #+begin_src emacs-lisp
> >       'foo
> >     #+end_src
> >
> >     #+srcname: foo
> >     #+begin_src emacs-lisp
> >       'foo
> >     #+end_src
> >
> >     #+function: foo
> >     #+begin_src emacs-lisp
> >       'foo
> >     #+end_src
> >
> > [2]  calling external functions
> >
> >     #+call: foo()
> >
> >     #+lob: foo()
> >
> > [3]  named data
> >
> >     #+data: something
> >     : something
> >     #+results: something
> >     : something
> >
> >     etc...
> 
> Hi Eric,
> 
> named code blocks [1] "source"
> calling external functions [2] "call"
> named data [3] "object"
> 
> My motivation for [3] "object" instead of the suggested alternates is
> the hope that it will be possible to name things like lists and
> paragraphs (that aren't results or data) and pass these objects to
> source code blocks.
> 

I disagree with Tom on [1]: it should clearly be "srcname", in analogy
to #+tblname - and also so I don't have to change my files :-} (but see
my question about tblname below).

I agree on [2] "call".

I'm confused by [3] so I will say nothing for now, except to ask some
questions: are we talking about what a human would use to label a piece
of data for consumption by a block (including perhaps the future
possibilities of lists and paragraphs that Tom brought up)? what babel
would use to label a results block (possibly so that it could be
consumed by another block in a chain)? both? would that mean
that #+tblname would go the way of the dodo and that tables would be
labelled with #+data (or #+object or whatever else we come up with)?

Thanks,
Nick