From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Marcin Borkowski <mbork@mbork.pl>
Subject: Re: Bug: incorrect export for LaTeX [8.2.10 (release_8.2.10 @
 c:/emacs25-91/share/emacs/25.0.91/lisp/org/)]
Date: Sun, 06 Mar 2016 20:57:12 +0100
Message-ID: <87bn6rz8fb.fsf@mbork.pl>
References: <CAL8hB42DYjxjE-GoBPNoStkREHBBmM-dv4QO7=wnNPFAJArcyg@mail.gmail.com>
	<87io17qks4.fsf@nicolasgoaziou.fr> <87d1rco9v1.fsf@gmx.us>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Return-path: <emacs-orgmode-bounces+geo-emacs-orgmode=m.gmane.org@gnu.org>
Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:33444)
	by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71)
	(envelope-from <mbork@mbork.pl>) id 1acenv-000306-LD
	for emacs-orgmode@gnu.org; Sun, 06 Mar 2016 14:57:28 -0500
Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71)
	(envelope-from <mbork@mbork.pl>) id 1acenr-0008D7-Lw
	for emacs-orgmode@gnu.org; Sun, 06 Mar 2016 14:57:27 -0500
Received: from mail.mojserwer.eu ([2a01:5e00:2:52::8]:36444)
	by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71)
	(envelope-from <mbork@mbork.pl>) id 1acenr-0008D3-ER
	for emacs-orgmode@gnu.org; Sun, 06 Mar 2016 14:57:23 -0500
In-reply-to: <87d1rco9v1.fsf@gmx.us>
List-Id: "General discussions about Org-mode." <emacs-orgmode.gnu.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/options/emacs-orgmode>,
	<mailto:emacs-orgmode-request@gnu.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/emacs-orgmode>
List-Post: <mailto:emacs-orgmode@gnu.org>
List-Help: <mailto:emacs-orgmode-request@gnu.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/emacs-orgmode>,
	<mailto:emacs-orgmode-request@gnu.org?subject=subscribe>
Errors-To: emacs-orgmode-bounces+geo-emacs-orgmode=m.gmane.org@gnu.org
Sender: emacs-orgmode-bounces+geo-emacs-orgmode=m.gmane.org@gnu.org
To: Rasmus <rasmus@gmx.us>
Cc: emacs-orgmode@gnu.org


On 2016-03-02, at 22:20, Rasmus <rasmus@gmx.us> wrote:

>> Fair enough. Do you have a proposal for deeply nested headlines (or
>> items)?
>
> Use this header:
>
> #+options: h:0
> #+latex_header: \usepackage{enumitem}
> #+latex_header: \setlistdepth{9}
> #+latex_header: \setlist[enumerate]{label=3D(\arabic*)}
>
>
> I don=E2=80=99t think we need to do anything.  If we wanted to support =
this we=E2=80=99d
> probably need to load enumerate (which is not a bad package...).  We ha=
ve
> worse offenders of manual config.  Local TOCs spring to mind.
> http://orgmode.org/org.html#fn-113

I've just seen this thread, and decided to chime in.  I think that the
situation is fine: such deep nesting of lists should be _actively
discouraged_ IMHO.

While list support in LaTeX is IMO suboptimal (to say the least), and
enumitem is a must for me in most of my documents, four levels of
nesting is even too many (by a factor of 2).  My opinion is that base
LaTeX should limit the nesting to two levels, and a special package
(like enumitem) should be needed to cater for those really strange
documents that need more.  (Yes, they do exist, but are very rare
I believe.)

> Rasmus

Best,

--=20
Marcin Borkowski
http://octd.wmi.amu.edu.pl/en/Marcin_Borkowski
Faculty of Mathematics and Computer Science
Adam Mickiewicz University