Re: [O] [RFC] Standardized code block keywords

[Eric Schulte]

>
> Now, between "srcname" and "source": I'm used to whatever my Yasnippet is
> entering for me. That's currently "srcname". I don't have a strong opinion,
> though, to choose one over the other, except that I like Nick's argument with
> the table analogy.
>
>> I agree on [2] "call".
>
> I clearly agree on "call" as well.
>

noted, thanks

>
> Here, I'd like to ask: what about "sbe"?  In my own understanding, it's a
> call, absolutely similar to "call". Is there a technical reason to be forced
> to differentiate both?  If no, can we use "call" as well instead of "sbe"?
>

The only difference is that sbe is a function name, and to name a
function call (a function which will take up that term in the entire
Emacs-lisp namespace across all applications) seems somewhat pushy.

>
>> 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)?
>
> For point 3, Eric, I guess that whichever term is chosen, that does not mean
> that "results" will change (I mean: when it's a result of a block execution)?
>

I would be happy for results to change to data or tblname (if a table)
or whatever else is selected.

>
> In other words, if we choose for "object", we still will have the possibility
> to use "results" (automatically generated) and "object" to refer to something
> we want to use in another call?
>
>>>>                 named data [3] -- "tblname" "resname" "results" "data"
>
> I don't specifically like "resname".
>
> I would keep "results" for automatically generated "results".
>
> I do like "data", but can learn to like "object" as a more generic term,
> future-proof for coming extensions.
>

I'll mark you down as undecided for this term. :)

>
> Last remark: we could get one step further and wonder if it wouldn't be good
> to impose a single way to pass variables? We currently have two different
> mechanisms:
>
>     #+srcname: convert-date-to-French-format
>     #+begin_src sql :var column=""
>     CONVERT(varchar(10), $column, 103) AS $column
>     #+end_src
>
> and
>
>     #+srcname: convert-date-to-French-format(column="")
>     #+begin_src sql
>     CONVERT(varchar(10), $column, 103) AS $column
>     #+end_src
>
> I guess that the first one is easier if we want to construct complex variable
> values (which call Emacs Lisp code or such), but...
>

I don't feel that this example causes as much confusion, but if I'm
wrong I am open to change on this front.  Although the only possible
change here would be to remove the second option as the first method of
specifying variables is central to code block management.

>
> Thanks for your comments...
>

Thanks for your feedback, Best -- Eric

>
> Best regards,
>   Seb

-- 
Eric Schulte
http://cs.unm.edu/~eschulte/