[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [PATCH] Derive non-default start value for ordered list
From: |
Samuel Wales |
Subject: |
Re: [PATCH] Derive non-default start value for ordered list |
Date: |
Sun, 1 Dec 2019 14:13:24 -0700 |
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. so your solution
would be anomalous.
and i'm used to exporters doing that so it feels strange to me to rely
on the org text. i view that as potentially changing. what should
occur if you do something that renumbers it?
in the second case, the @ syntax and your solution both seem brittle
to me. you might add to the first list.
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 solution still fails if you have the first list in a separate
file. therefore i propose org id to solve that.
for this, we could invoke the org id mechanism, or use id markers,
which is an old, unimplemented idea that can substitute for a bunch of
syntax with a consistent syntax.
but in any case the above illustrates a less brittle solution than @
numbers and using the existing number.
does that make any sense?
just a brainstorm, not to be taken too seriously if you think it's all wrong.
On 12/1/19, Jens Lechtenboerger <address@hidden> wrote:
> 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 request to export lists without @-syntax to
> their “correct” start values [1].
>
> Before working on my backend, I’d like to ask for feedback: Why was
> the @-syntax introduced? Of what non-obvious effects should I be
> aware?
>
> 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 the first list item from its bullet string if the
> item
> 1. does not specify a counter itself,
> 2. has an alphanumeric bullet, and
> 3. does not have a default start value (1, a, A).
>
> I hacked this as postprocessing step on the list’s struct. Maybe an
> Org expert could suggest how to do this in one pass?
>
> Best wishes
> Jens
>
> P.S. I did not work on documentation yet as I’m not sure that this
> change is acceptable.
>
> [1] https://gitlab.com/oer/org-re-reveal/merge_requests/27
>
>
--
The Kafka Pandemic
What is misopathy?
https://thekafkapandemic.blogspot.com/2013/10/why-some-diseases-are-wronged.html
The disease DOES progress. MANY people have died from it. And ANYBODY
can get it at any time.