Re: [PATCH] Derive non-default start value for ordered list

2019-12-02 Thread Jens Lechtenboerger
On 2019-12-02, at 08:23, Nicolas Goaziou wrote: > Jens Lechtenboerger writes: > >> [...] >> 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

Re: [PATCH] Derive non-default start value for ordered list

2019-12-02 Thread Jens Lechtenboerger
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

Re: [PATCH] Derive non-default start value for ordered list

2019-12-01 Thread Nicolas Goaziou
Hello, Jens Lechtenboerger writes: > 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

Re: [PATCH] Derive non-default start value for ordered list

2019-12-01 Thread Samuel Wales
[note: id markers use org ids.] On 12/1/19, 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

Re: [PATCH] Derive non-default start value for ordered list

2019-12-01 Thread Samuel Wales
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

[PATCH] Derive non-default start value for ordered list

2019-12-01 Thread Jens Lechtenboerger
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