On 2019-12-01, at 14:13, Samuel Wales 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.
If I took the effort to type something, then that should not be ignored by an exporter. > so your solution would be anomalous. But meet some users’ expectations. Quite likely, those of new Org users. > and i'm used to exporters doing that so it feels strange to me to rely > on the org text. If text is ignored, I should not need to type it in the first place. > i view that as potentially changing. what should > occur if you do something that renumbers it? If I renumber, then, of course, I want to see the new numbers after export. > in the second case, the @ syntax and your solution both seem brittle > to me. you might add to the first list. I agree. > 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 would indeed be a cool solution. Thanks Jens
