Re: setting local variables

[Carsten Dominik <dominik@uva.nl>]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1225 bytes --]

On Thu, Sep 7, 2017 at 5:01 PM, Eric Abrahamsen <eric@ericabrahamsen.net>
wrote:

> Nicolas Goaziou <mail@nicolasgoaziou.fr> writes:
>
>
> [...]
>
> > So, any objection to have all major back-ends ignoring unnumbered trees
> > from TOC, and make that an Org specificity?
>


Hi Nicolas,

OK, now I have read this thread.

I do object to removing unnumbered headers from the toc.  It breaks
documented and used behaviour and aI see no pressing reason to change it. I
find, for compact documents, it works extremely well to have a toc that has
no numbers - in fact, in many cases I find numbered tocs even annoying.  In
particular, it works really well in websites, where I use it constantly.

I am sorry that I did not see this earlier - but I really think this change
should be reverted.  If there is a desire to have sections that are not put
into the toc, it should be separated from the num: and toc: switches and
depend, for example on properties instead.

The fact that in LaTeX "unnumbered" is linked to the question if something
is in the toc is some kind of mistake, this behaviour is very specific to
LaTeX-like systems (including TeXInfo), but it is not a very logical system
IMO.

Carsten


>
> Sounds good!
>
>
>

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 1961 bytes --]