Hi everyone,
On Thu, Sep 21, 2017 at 1:16 AM, Kaushal Modi <kaushal.m...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Wed, Sep 20, 2017, 2:43 PM Scott Randby <sran...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> >> >> On 09/20/2017 12:17 PM, Carsten Dominik wrote: >> > On Thu, Sep 7, 2017 at 5:01 PM, Eric Abrahamsen < >> e...@ericabrahamsen.net> >> > wrote: >> > I do object to removing unnumbered headers from the toc. > > > I believe this change was made to fix the case of mixed numbered and > unnumbered headings in the TOC. > > Please see the other thread[1] where I suggest supporting the "case 3" > where we want TOC where all headings are numbered i.e. the case of num:nil. > This would address my main concern and make it usable, yes. It is another question if the association of unnumbered and not toc-listed is a useful one in general. The cleanest would be to have properties like NO_TOC_LISTING and NOT_NUMBERED or so to allow local control. Conflating it with the global switches I find a bit confusing. Carsten > > It > > breaks >> > documented and used behaviour and aI see no pressing reason to change >> it. I >> > find, for compact documents, it works extremely well to have a toc that >> has >> > no numbers - in fact, in many cases I find numbered tocs even >> annoying. In >> > particular, it works really well in websites, where I use it constantly. >> > > Mine is the same use case and the num:nil case covers that. > > I have to agree with Carsten. I use unnumbered table of contents all the >> time in web pages. Almost all of my Org files that generate web pages have >> the following: >> >> #+options: num:nil toc:t >> > > @Scott Please see that other thread[1]. I have this exact use case. And if > the case 3 discussed in that thread is supported all should be good. > > [1]: http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/emacs-orgmode/2017-09/msg00497.html > -- > > Kaushal Modi >
