[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [PATCH] Derive non-default start value for ordered list

From: Samuel Wales
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Derive non-default start value for ordered list
Date: Sun, 1 Dec 2019 14:13:24 -0700

i think it might be partlly a question of whether these numbers are
fixed things that refer to fixed items [like referring to sections in
a law that is not in the document] vs. being used to continue lists.

they are both legitimate uses.  in the first case, the @ syntax makes
sense to me, because it specifies a fixed alphanumber.  yes i made
that word up.

some exporters assume the numbers in the org source list don't matter
and start from 1 or the @ in the exported text.  so your solution
would be anomalous.

and i'm used to exporters doing that so it feels strange to me to rely
on the org text.  i view that as potentially changing.  what should
occur if you do something that renumbers it?

in the second case, the @ syntax and your solution both seem brittle
to me.  you might add to the first list.

i think there can be a third solution that would be less brittle.

just as a brainstorm, consider the common case of continued lists like

1.  asdf
2.  <<asdf-list-end>> asdf

a paragraph.

3.  [@asdf-list-end] asdf

this solution still fails if you have the first list in a separate
file.  therefore i propose org id to solve that.

for this, we could invoke the org id mechanism, or use id markers,
which is an old, unimplemented idea that can substitute for a bunch of
syntax with a consistent syntax.

but in any case the above illustrates a less brittle solution than @
numbers and using the existing number.

does that make any sense?

just a brainstorm, not to be taken too seriously if you think it's all wrong.

On 12/1/19, Jens Lechtenboerger <address@hidden> wrote:
> Hi there,
> currently, we have to write the following to continue an ordered
> list from a value different from 1:
> 42. [@42] Answer
> 43. Question?
> The requirement to type redundant information with the @-syntax
> always struck me as odd.  For my export backend org-re-reveal, I
> recently received a request to export lists without @-syntax to
> their “correct” start values [1].
> Before working on my backend, I’d like to ask for feedback: Why was
> the @-syntax introduced?  Of what non-obvious effects should I be
> aware?
> What do you think about the attached patch that allows to omit the
> @-syntax?  Controlled by the new variable
> org-list-use-first-bullet-as-non-standard-counter, the code assigns
> a counter value to the first list item from its bullet string if the
> item
> 1. does not specify a counter itself,
> 2. has an alphanumeric bullet, and
> 3. does not have a default start value (1, a, A).
> I hacked this as postprocessing step on the list’s struct.  Maybe an
> Org expert could suggest how to do this in one pass?
> Best wishes
> Jens
> P.S.  I did not work on documentation yet as I’m not sure that this
> change is acceptable.
> [1] https://gitlab.com/oer/org-re-reveal/merge_requests/27

The Kafka Pandemic

What is misopathy?

The disease DOES progress. MANY people have died from it. And ANYBODY
can get it at any time.

reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]