I didn't say it was an unusual case. I said it didn't cover all the
use-cases. Maybe you are really needing a subset of the initial feature.
Understood.
IOW, do mixed numbered/unnumbered headings make sense in TOC?
Correct. That does not make sense to me. That is not my use case.
>> 1. it makes all export back-ends consistent with TOC;
>>
>
> I understand that. But would like a way to get back the earlier behavior
> too.
Then there is the other way around: how do we tell LaTeX to include both
numbered and unnumbered headings?
I see your point.
AFAICT, this doesn't solve any of the two concerns. What we can do for
"num:nil toc:4" can be done for "num:nil" alone.
That might work.. treat num:nil differently than num:0
So here's the summary as per my understanding.
Currently we support these:
1. Don't allow a mix of numbered and unnumbered headings in TOC. If any heading is unnumbered using the UNNUMBERED property, remove it from the TOC.
2. If we globally unnumber headings beyond a certain level by doing something like num:3, don't show headings beyond that level in the TOC. So num:0 wouldn't number any heading and also not generate the TOC.
Now the 3rd use case (mine):
3. Unnumber all headings, but still keep them in TOC.
So allow this 3rd use case when, may be, we have num:nil and not num:0?
WDYT?
@Carsten: Does this satisfy your use case too?
--