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

[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 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.

If I took the effort to type something, then that should not be
ignored by an exporter.

> so your solution would be anomalous.

But meet some users’ expectations.  Quite likely, those of new Org
users.

> and i'm used to exporters doing that so it feels strange to me to rely
> on the org text.

If text is ignored, I should not need to type it in the first
place.

> i view that as potentially changing.  what should
> occur if you do something that renumbers it?

If I renumber, then, of course, I want to see the new numbers after
export.

> in the second case, the @ syntax and your solution both seem brittle
> to me.  you might add to the first list.

I agree.

> 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 would indeed be a cool solution.

Thanks
Jens