|  | @@ -208,6 +208,9 @@ would then be [[#sandbox][the sandbox]].
 | 
	
		
			
				|  |  |  
 | 
	
		
			
				|  |  |  
 | 
	
		
			
				|  |  |  * Tasks [35/57]
 | 
	
		
			
				|  |  | +** PROPOSED raise elisp error when source-blocks return errors
 | 
	
		
			
				|  |  | +Not sure how/if this would work, but it may be desirable.
 | 
	
		
			
				|  |  | +
 | 
	
		
			
				|  |  |  ** PROPOSED Default args
 | 
	
		
			
				|  |  |     This would be good thing to address soon. I'm imagining that
 | 
	
		
			
				|  |  |     e.g. here, the 'caller' block would return the answer 30. I believe
 | 
	
	
		
			
				|  | @@ -2484,13 +2487,19 @@ a+b
 | 
	
		
			
				|  |  |  #+begin_src python
 | 
	
		
			
				|  |  |  a+b
 | 
	
		
			
				|  |  |  #+end_src
 | 
	
		
			
				|  |  | -****** TODO Rely on defaults (one of which is missing)
 | 
	
		
			
				|  |  | +****** DEFERRED Rely on defaults (one of which is missing)
 | 
	
		
			
				|  |  |  #+lob: adder2( )
 | 
	
		
			
				|  |  |  
 | 
	
		
			
				|  |  |  [no output]
 | 
	
		
			
				|  |  |  
 | 
	
		
			
				|  |  |  ## should be error: b has no default
 | 
	
		
			
				|  |  |  
 | 
	
		
			
				|  |  | +Maybe we should let the programming language handle this case.  For
 | 
	
		
			
				|  |  | +example python spits out an error in the =#+lob= line above.  Maybe
 | 
	
		
			
				|  |  | +rather than catching these errors our-selves we should raise an error
 | 
	
		
			
				|  |  | +when the source-block returns an error.  I'll propose a [[* PROPOSED raise elisp error when source-blocks return errors][task]] for this
 | 
	
		
			
				|  |  | +idea, I'm not sure how/if it would work...
 | 
	
		
			
				|  |  | +
 | 
	
		
			
				|  |  |  ****** TODO Default over-ridden
 | 
	
		
			
				|  |  |  #+lob: adder2(a=1)
 | 
	
		
			
				|  |  |  
 |