From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Carsten Dominik Subject: Re: setting local variables Date: Thu, 21 Sep 2017 11:58:09 +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> <87vakco0f5.fsf@gmx.us> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="f403045c20c06a68420559b0221f" Return-path: Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:37549) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1duyFc-0007p3-LH for emacs-orgmode@gnu.org; Thu, 21 Sep 2017 05:58:33 -0400 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1duyFb-0002wy-Db for emacs-orgmode@gnu.org; Thu, 21 Sep 2017 05:58:32 -0400 Received: from mail-wm0-x22d.google.com ([2a00:1450:400c:c09::22d]:45065) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.0:RSA_AES_128_CBC_SHA1:16) (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1duyFb-0002vY-54 for emacs-orgmode@gnu.org; Thu, 21 Sep 2017 05:58:31 -0400 Received: by mail-wm0-x22d.google.com with SMTP id q124so268168wmb.0 for ; Thu, 21 Sep 2017 02:58:30 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <87vakco0f5.fsf@gmx.us> 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: org-mode list --f403045c20c06a68420559b0221f Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Thu, Sep 21, 2017 at 11:39 AM, Rasmus wrote: > Carsten Dominik writes: > > >> 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. Conflati= ng > > it with the global switches I find a bit confusing. > > AFAIK NOT_NUMBERED is the UNNUMBERED property. > > To support an UNNUMBERED and "UNTOCED" entry in ox-latex /in general/, we > would need to have something like KOMA-Script=E2=80=99s \addsec. Alterna= tively, > one can manually add \addcontentsline{toc}{LEVEL}{NAME}, but these are no= t > indented (see https://tex.stackexchange.com/a/212439/3878). Also, header= s > aren=E2=80=99t updated, though this is less of a concern. > > Otherwise, this can only be archived by setting the secnumdepth counter t= o > a sufficiently low value (say 0 for unnumbered chapters) in which case > everything below that number is also unnumbered. > Hi Rasmus, yes, I am aware that LaTeX does use unnumbered for this, but this is backend specific implementation, and not an argument about the logic of this approach. Carsten > > Rasmus > > -- > I almost cut my hair, it happened just the other day > > > --f403045c20c06a68420559b0221f Content-Type: text/html; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable


On Thu, Sep 21, 2017 at 11:39 AM, Rasmus <rasmus@gmx.us> wr= ote:
Carsten Dominik <= ;dominik@uva.nl> writes:

>> I believe this change was made to fix the case of mixed numbered a= nd
>> unnumbered headings in the TOC.
>>
>> Please see the other thread[1] where I suggest supporting the &quo= t;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-li= sted
> is a useful one in general.=C2=A0 The cleanest would be to have proper= ties like
> NO_TOC_LISTING and NOT_NUMBERED or so to allow local control.=C2=A0 Co= nflating
> it with the global switches I find a bit confusing.

AFAIK NOT_NUMBERED is the UNNUMBERED property.

To support an UNNUMBERED and "UNTOCED" entry in ox-latex /in gene= ral/, we
would need to have something like KOMA-Script=E2=80=99s \addsec.=C2=A0 Alte= rnatively,
one can manually add \addcontentsline{toc}{LEVEL}{NAME}, but these are= not
indented (see https://tex.stackexchange.com/a/2124= 39/3878).=C2=A0 Also, headers
aren=E2=80=99t updated, though this is less of a concern.

Otherwise, this can only be archived by setting the secnumdepth counter to<= br> a sufficiently low value (say 0 for unnumbered chapters) in which case
everything below that number is also unnumbered.

<= /div>
Hi Rasmus,

yes, I am aware that LaTeX do= es use unnumbered for this, but this is backend specific implementation, an= d not an argument about the logic of this approach.

Carsten
=C2=A0

Rasmus

--
I almost cut my hair, it happened just the other day



--f403045c20c06a68420559b0221f--