https://bugs.documentfoundation.org/show_bug.cgi?id=155263
Eyal Rozenberg <[email protected]> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Resolution|WONTFIX |--- Status|RESOLVED |UNCONFIRMED --- Comment #7 from Eyal Rozenberg <[email protected]> --- (In reply to Heiko Tietze from comment #4) > LibreOffice knows this as Number Range... You define a variable "test" with > a value 123 and another with test+1. That's what I described as insufficient in the opening comment. The request here is for a _single_ field, with no distinction between the first and subsequent fields constituting the sequence. I concede that MS Office does not offer this (at least, AFAICT). But still, we should. You see, even if we ignored the hassle of defining two different fields (which IMNSHO is itself reason enough to validate this request) - the distinction of the fields makes the mechanism brittle and subject to unexpected failure: Suppose one author sets this up in a document. Now, a second person gets the document, and decides to remove some paragraph or section where the first field was used. What's going to happen? Well, actually, initially, nothing might happen; the second-type field text won't be updated immediately. But the next time the variable is used, e.g. when one copy-pastes one of the second-type fields - the numbers will be reset: instead of 124, 125, 126, the second person will now see 1, 2, 3. And will be at a loss regarding why the numbers have changed. Or worse - the second person might not even notice this. Alternatively, the second user might make a copy of the first-type field, and notice that it doesn't increment. So, no, this won't do. It needs to be one field that the user can replicate, without worrying about the first occurrence doing something special. For robustness. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are the assignee for the bug.
