* Bug in :minlevel for INCLUDE
@ 2011-05-05 22:43 Robert Goldman
2011-05-05 23:03 ` Nick Dokos
0 siblings, 1 reply; 3+ messages in thread
From: Robert Goldman @ 2011-05-05 22:43 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Org Mode
AFAICT there is an off-by-one-error here. I.e., if I tell it that the
:minlevel is 2, then my included level one headers get level 3, and if I
tell it that the :minlevel is 1, then they get level 2.
So it seems like :minlevel is actually being interpreted as a level
*increment*, rather than a minimum...
Best,
r
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 3+ messages in thread
* Re: Bug in :minlevel for INCLUDE
2011-05-05 22:43 Bug in :minlevel for INCLUDE Robert Goldman
@ 2011-05-05 23:03 ` Nick Dokos
2011-05-05 23:17 ` Robert Goldman
0 siblings, 1 reply; 3+ messages in thread
From: Nick Dokos @ 2011-05-05 23:03 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: rpgoldman; +Cc: nicholas.dokos, Org Mode
Robert Goldman <rpgoldman@sift.info> wrote:
> AFAICT there is an off-by-one-error here. I.e., if I tell it that the
> :minlevel is 2, then my included level one headers get level 3, and if I
> tell it that the :minlevel is 1, then they get level 2.
>
I think that's the desired behavior. That allows text before the first
headline in the included file (level 0) to properly take its place in the
result tree.
> So it seems like :minlevel is actually being interpreted as a level
> *increment*, rather than a minimum...
>
I don't really understand your comment: level N in the included file
becomes level :minlevel+N in the result (N = 0, 1, 2, ...). What were you
expecting?
Nick
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 3+ messages in thread
* Re: Bug in :minlevel for INCLUDE
2011-05-05 23:03 ` Nick Dokos
@ 2011-05-05 23:17 ` Robert Goldman
0 siblings, 0 replies; 3+ messages in thread
From: Robert Goldman @ 2011-05-05 23:17 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: nicholas.dokos; +Cc: Org Mode
On 5/5/11 May 5 -6:03 PM, Nick Dokos wrote:
> Robert Goldman <rpgoldman@sift.info> wrote:
>
>> AFAICT there is an off-by-one-error here. I.e., if I tell it that the
>> :minlevel is 2, then my included level one headers get level 3, and if I
>> tell it that the :minlevel is 1, then they get level 2.
>>
>
> I think that's the desired behavior. That allows text before the first
> headline in the included file (level 0) to properly take its place in the
> result tree.
>
>> So it seems like :minlevel is actually being interpreted as a level
>> *increment*, rather than a minimum...
>>
>
> I don't really understand your comment: level N in the included file
> becomes level :minlevel+N in the result (N = 0, 1, 2, ...). What were you
> expecting?
I was expecting the standard English usage (always dangerous in a
technical context!).
The minimum of 1,2,3 is 1.
But here the thing we are calling "minimum" for 1,2,3 would be zero.
Suggestion: the term :levelinc[rement] would be more indicative of the
meaning. I think if you read your explanation, you will see that the
thing referred to as a minimum is really an increment...
It may be too late to make that change without disruption, so the
alternative would be to modify the manual to make the meaning clearer.
Best,
r
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 3+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2011-05-05 23:17 UTC | newest]
Thread overview: 3+ messages (download: mbox.gz / follow: Atom feed)
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
2011-05-05 22:43 Bug in :minlevel for INCLUDE Robert Goldman
2011-05-05 23:03 ` Nick Dokos
2011-05-05 23:17 ` Robert Goldman
Code repositories for project(s) associated with this public inbox
https://git.savannah.gnu.org/cgit/emacs/org-mode.git
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for read-only IMAP folder(s) and NNTP newsgroup(s).