Robert Goldman <rpgold...@sift.info> wrote: > AFAICT there is an off-by-one-error here. I.e., if I tell it that the > :minlevel is 2, then my included level one headers get level 3, and if I > tell it that the :minlevel is 1, then they get level 2. >
I think that's the desired behavior. That allows text before the first headline in the included file (level 0) to properly take its place in the result tree. > So it seems like :minlevel is actually being interpreted as a level > *increment*, rather than a minimum... > I don't really understand your comment: level N in the included file becomes level :minlevel+N in the result (N = 0, 1, 2, ...). What were you expecting? Nick
