Re: [Orgmode] why not auto-renumbering list ?

[Carsten Dominik]

Hi Nicolas,


On Aug 7, 2010, at 2:41 PM, Nicolas Goaziou wrote:

> Hello,
>
> I'm still into lists,


First, my apologies that I have so far not found the time to test your
improved list implementation.  I think this is a far-reaching change,
which is why it needs careful testing before we apply it.
I really hope to get to this soon.

Have you had any testing feedback from anyone else so far?
Have you tested it in all the export backends?

> and I'm wondering about the global usefulness of
> `org-auto-renumber-ordered-lists', provided that:
>
> - it isn't noticeably slower to renumber and fix a list than to simply
>  fix its indentation;
> - you can use address@hidden:num] to enforce a special numbering;
> - some actions on a list will renumber it whatever the value of this
>  variable is.
>
> So, I'd like to hear about other users. Do you set this variable to
> nil? If so, what is your use case?

I don't think anyone sets this to nil.  But there is a use case for
this, if someone wants some strange specific numbering,
then it might be useful to allow turning it off.  There is no harm
in having this possibility.

> If there's a need for decreasing numbers or numbers increasing by more
> than one, I could add address@hidden:num] and address@hidden:num,@step:num] as
> possibilities, but it looks a bit overkill to me.

To me as well.

> Anyway, the idea behind this would be to:
>
> - remove `org-maybe-renumber-ordered-list',
> - remove `org-maybe-renumber-ordered-list-safe',
> - remove this variable,
> - rename `org-fix-bullet-type' to `org-fix-bullet',
> - call `org-fix-bullet' unconditionally when acting on a list instead
>  of having to decide if the function should renumber or simply fix
>  indentation.

While this sounds reasonable - it also unnecessary to me.
Why fix something that works?

- Carsten