From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Carsten Dominik Subject: Re: setting local variables Date: Thu, 21 Sep 2017 10:38:41 +0200 Message-ID: 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> <87k21azncs.fsf@nicolasgoaziou.fr> <87bmmm4kny.fsf@ericabrahamsen.net> <08f7ca4a-a19e-8dcb-b877-d306dda5c5b4@gmail.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="94eb2c0c3c863c68320559af0649" Return-path: Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:46077) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1dux0j-0002Uw-MQ for emacs-orgmode@gnu.org; Thu, 21 Sep 2017 04:39:07 -0400 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1dux0h-0006C3-Tj for emacs-orgmode@gnu.org; Thu, 21 Sep 2017 04:39:05 -0400 Received: from mail-wm0-x241.google.com ([2a00:1450:400c:c09::241]:36929) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.0:RSA_AES_128_CBC_SHA1:16) (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1dux0h-0006A7-IG for emacs-orgmode@gnu.org; Thu, 21 Sep 2017 04:39:03 -0400 Received: by mail-wm0-x241.google.com with SMTP id f4so4521020wmh.4 for ; Thu, 21 Sep 2017 01:39:03 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: 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: Kaushal Modi Cc: Eric Abrahamsen , Scott Randby , emacs-org list --94eb2c0c3c863c68320559af0649 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Hi everyone, On Thu, Sep 21, 2017 at 1:16 AM, Kaushal Modi wrote: > On Wed, Sep 20, 2017, 2:43 PM Scott Randby wrote: > >> >> >> On 09/20/2017 12:17 PM, Carsten Dominik wrote: >> > On Thu, Sep 7, 2017 at 5:01 PM, Eric Abrahamsen < >> eric@ericabrahamsen.net> >> > wrote: >> > I do object to removing unnumbered headers from the toc. > > > I believe this change was made to fix the case of mixed numbered and > unnumbered headings in the TOC. > > Please see the other thread[1] where I suggest supporting the "case 3" > where we want TOC where all headings are numbered i.e. the case of num:nil. > This would address my main concern and make it usable, yes. It is another question if the association of unnumbered and not toc-listed is a useful one in general. The cleanest would be to have properties like NO_TOC_LISTING and NOT_NUMBERED or so to allow local control. Conflating it with the global switches I find a bit confusing. Carsten > > 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. >> > > Mine is the same use case and the num:nil case covers that. > > I have to agree with Carsten. I use unnumbered table of contents all the >> time in web pages. Almost all of my Org files that generate web pages have >> the following: >> >> #+options: num:nil toc:t >> > > @Scott Please see that other thread[1]. I have this exact use case. And if > the case 3 discussed in that thread is supported all should be good. > > [1]: http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/emacs-orgmode/2017-09/msg00497.html > -- > > Kaushal Modi > --94eb2c0c3c863c68320559af0649 Content-Type: text/html; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Hi everyone,



On Thu, Sep 21, 2017 at 1:16 AM, = Kaushal Modi <kaushal.modi@gmail.com> wrote:
On Wed, Sep 20, 2017, 2:43 PM Scott Randby <srandby@gmail.com> wrote:


On 09/20/2017 12:17 PM, Carsten Dominik wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 7, 2017 at 5:01 PM, Eric Abrahamsen <eric@ericabrahamsen.net><= br> > wrote:
 > I do object to removing unnumbered headers from the toc.

I believe this change was made to fix the c= ase of mixed numbered and unnumbered headings in the TOC.

Please see the other thread[1] where I suggest supporting the "= ;case 3" where we want TOC where all headings are numbered i.e. the ca= se of num:nil.=C2=A0

This would addre= ss my main concern and make it usable, yes.

It is = another question if the association of unnumbered and not toc-listed is a u= seful one in general.=C2=A0 The cleanest would be to have properties like N= O_TOC_LISTING and NOT_NUMBERED or so to allow local control.=C2=A0 Conflati= ng it with the global switches I find a bit confusing.

=
Carsten
=C2=A0

=C2=A0It
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 tha= t has
> no numbers - in fact, in many cases I find numbered tocs even annoying= .=C2=A0 In
> particular, it works really well in websites, where I use it constantl= y.

Mine is the same use ca= se and the num:nil case covers that.=C2=A0

<= /div>
=C2=A0I have= to agree with Carsten. I use unnumbered table of contents all the time in = web pages. Almost all of my Org files that generate web pages have the foll= owing:

#+options: num:nil toc:t

@= Scott Please see that other thread[1]. I have this exact use case. And if t= he case 3 discussed in that thread is supported all should be good.=C2=A0

--
=

Kaushal Modi


--94eb2c0c3c863c68320559af0649--