From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Nicolas Goaziou Subject: Re: setting local variables Date: Thu, 07 Sep 2017 14:48:03 +0200 Message-ID: <87k21azncs.fsf@nicolasgoaziou.fr> References: <871sotiqld.fsf@ericabrahamsen.net> <87r2wsly88.fsf@nicolasgoaziou.fr> <877eykbpho.fsf@ericabrahamsen.net> <87wp5dmkm0.fsf@gmx.us> <87h8wh13tm.fsf@ericabrahamsen.net> <87y3psp5ne.fsf@gmx.us> <87mv68159v.fsf@nicolasgoaziou.fr> <87h8wgov62.fsf@gmx.us> <87fuc0asaq.fsf@nicolasgoaziou.fr> <87y3pr7pn2.fsf@ericabrahamsen.net> <874lsfaho3.fsf@nicolasgoaziou.fr> <87pob2opic.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]:43589) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1dpwE7-0002c9-Tp for emacs-orgmode@gnu.org; Thu, 07 Sep 2017 08:48:16 -0400 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1dpwE3-0004Ev-8i for emacs-orgmode@gnu.org; Thu, 07 Sep 2017 08:48:11 -0400 Received: from relay4-d.mail.gandi.net ([2001:4b98:c:538::196]:56794) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.0:DHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:32) (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1dpwE3-0004Dk-2a for emacs-orgmode@gnu.org; Thu, 07 Sep 2017 08:48:07 -0400 In-Reply-To: <87pob2opic.fsf@gmx.us> (rasmus@gmx.us's message of "Thu, 07 Sep 2017 10:56:59 +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" To: Rasmus Cc: emacs-orgmode@gnu.org Hello, Rasmus writes: > Speaking of LaTeX: not-in-toc and unnumbered is easy enough in LaTeX > as it=E2=80=99s just section*. Great. > ox-odt, ox-html and ox-ascii all seem to add unnumbered headings to the > toc. These are trivial to handle, since they use `org-export-collect-headlines' to build TOC. We just need to change this function. >> Or UNNUMBERED could imply "not in TOC" in "ox-texinfo.el", but that's >> less good, IMO. > > One nice thing about this, I guess, is that it might allow you to use the > "num" option to select which headings are kept out of the toc? IIURC, num:N would be equivalent to toc:N. Maybe we could remove the latter. So, any objection to have all major back-ends ignoring unnumbered trees from TOC, and make that an Org specificity? Regards, --=20 Nicolas Goaziou