From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Nicolas Goaziou Subject: Re: [patch, ox] Unnumbered headlines Date: Mon, 22 Sep 2014 17:53:06 +0200 Message-ID: <87vboflkil.fsf@nicolasgoaziou.fr> References: <87lhqzyubg.fsf@gmx.us> <87bnrrp0tb.fsf@nicolasgoaziou.fr> <87r40n6nrg.fsf@gmx.us> <87egwmaxte.fsf@nicolasgoaziou.fr> <87k34y701i.fsf@gmx.us> <87fvfl86ct.fsf@nicolasgoaziou.fr> <87k34xghtt.fsf@gmx.us> <87ppeon4mw.fsf@nicolasgoaziou.fr> <87tx4020lh.fsf@gmx.us> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Return-path: Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:40011) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1XW5un-0004Pv-1P for emacs-orgmode@gnu.org; Mon, 22 Sep 2014 11:52:45 -0400 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1XW5ue-0004Ep-Ui for emacs-orgmode@gnu.org; Mon, 22 Sep 2014 11:52:36 -0400 Received: from relay5-d.mail.gandi.net ([2001:4b98:c:538::197]:33554) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1XW5ue-0004E1-M3 for emacs-orgmode@gnu.org; Mon, 22 Sep 2014 11:52:28 -0400 In-Reply-To: <87tx4020lh.fsf@gmx.us> (rasmus@gmx.us's message of "Sun, 21 Sep 2014 22:13:46 +0200") List-Id: "General discussions about Org-mode." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-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 Cc: emacs-orgmode@gnu.org Hello, Rasmus writes: > With the last patch it gets weird when you have mixed trees, like this: > > * numbered > ** unnumbered=20 > :PROPERTIES: > :UNNUMBERED: t > :END: > > The LaTeX output is: > > \section{numbered} > \label{sec-1} > \subsection*{unnumbered} > \label{unnumbered-sec-0-1} > > Perhaps it would be nicer to use a single counter rather than two? > Right now, this > > * numbered1 > * unnumbered2=20 > :PROPERTIES: > :UNNUMBERED: t > :END: > * numbered2 > * unnumbered2 > :PROPERTIES: > :UNNUMBERED: t > :END: > > produces > > \section{numbered1} > \label{sec-1} > \section*{unnumbered2} > \label{unnumbered-sec-1} > \section{numbered2} > \label{sec-2} > \section*{unnumbered2} > \label{unnumbered-sec-2} > > But perhaps this is nicer? > > \label{sec-1} > \label{unnumbered-sec-2} > \label{sec-3} > \label{unnumbered-sec-4} > > In particular for mixed, nested trees.=20 I think it would be nice to keep "sec-NUM", with NUM matching current numbering, for numbered headlines. I'm not against a simple global counter for unnumbered headlines: \label{sec-1} \label{unnumbered-1} \label{sec-2} \label{unnumbered-2} or in the following example * H1 ** H2 :PROPERTIES: :UNNUMBERED: t :END: *** H3 *** H4 * H5 ** H6 the labelling scheme \label{sec-1} \label{unnumbered-1} \label{unnumbered-2} \label{unnumbered-3} \label{sec-2} \label{sec-2-1} >> This is incorrect. >> >> #+options: num:nil >> >> * Headline >> :PROPERTIES: >> :CUSTOM_ID: test >> :END: >> This is a link to [[#test]]. >> >> will produce >> >> \section*{Headline} >> \label{sec-1} >> This is a link to \hyperref[sec-1]{Headline}. > > Is *my statement* incorrect or is the current *output* incorrect? The former, but see below. > On my PC, when I refer to an unnumbered headline I get > \ref{UNNUMBERED}, but since it's after a \section* it will produce > nothing or a subsequent element. But I *did* forget to try the patch > with emacs -q and maybe that's why I'm not seeing \hyperref's. . . Actually, there was a small bug in the code, now fixed. `latex' back-end is expected to use "hyperref" when headline in unnumbered. > To be clear: you are happy if it uses the \hyperref[=C2=B7]{=C2=B7} in La= TeX, > but not \ref{=C2=B7} for unnumbered? You are the LaTeX expert. Isn't it reasonable? Regards, --=20 Nicolas Goaziou