emacs-orgmode@gnu.org archives
 help / color / mirror / code / Atom feed
From: Carsten Dominik <carsten.dominik@gmail.com>
To: Nicolas Goaziou <n.goaziou@gmail.com>
Cc: Org Mode List <emacs-orgmode@gnu.org>
Subject: Re: why not auto-renumbering list ?
Date: Mon, 9 Aug 2010 08:56:03 +0200	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <85E5FB19-8C5A-4436-AB89-65760B565C55@gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <87vd7mfvcx.wl%n.goaziou@gmail.com>

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 [@start: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 [@step:num] and [@start: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

  reply	other threads:[~2010-08-09  7:20 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 9+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2010-08-07 12:41 why not auto-renumbering list ? Nicolas Goaziou
2010-08-09  6:56 ` Carsten Dominik [this message]
2010-08-09 11:35   ` Nicolas Goaziou
2010-08-09 12:35     ` Nicolas Goaziou
2010-08-10  8:47       ` Andrew Swann
2010-08-10  9:46         ` Nicolas Goaziou
2010-08-10 11:18           ` Andrew Swann
2010-08-10 12:32             ` Nicolas Goaziou
2010-08-11  7:43               ` Andrew Swann

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:

  List information: https://www.orgmode.org/

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=85E5FB19-8C5A-4436-AB89-65760B565C55@gmail.com \
    --to=carsten.dominik@gmail.com \
    --cc=emacs-orgmode@gnu.org \
    --cc=n.goaziou@gmail.com \


* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
Code repositories for project(s) associated with this public inbox


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).