[note: id markers use org ids.] On 12/1/19, Samuel Wales <samolog...@gmail.com> wrote: > 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. >
-- 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.
