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 vvv 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 <jens.lechtenboer...@fsfe.org> 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? https://thekafkapandemic.blogspot.com/2013/10/why-some-diseases-are-wronged.html The disease DOES progress. MANY people have died from it. And ANYBODY can get it at any time.
