Re: [PATCH] Derive non-default start value for ordered list

[Samuel Wales <samologist@gmail.com>]

[note: id markers use org ids.]

On 12/1/19, Samuel Wales <samologist@gmail.com> wrote:
> i think it might be partlly a question of whether these numbers are
> fixed things that refer to fixed items [like referring to sections in
> a law that is not in the document] vs. being used to continue lists.
>
> they are both legitimate uses.  in the first case, the @ syntax makes
> sense to me, because it specifies a fixed alphanumber.  yes i made
> that word up.
>
> some exporters assume the numbers in the org source list don't matter
> and start from 1 or the @ in the exported text.  so your solution
> would be anomalous.
>
> and i'm used to exporters doing that so it feels strange to me to rely
> on the org text.  i view that as potentially changing.  what should
> occur if you do something that renumbers it?
>
>
> in the second case, the @ syntax and your solution both seem brittle
> to me.  you might add to the first list.
>
>
> i think there can be a third solution that would be less brittle.
>
> just as a brainstorm, consider the common case of continued lists like
>
> vvv
> 1.  asdf
> 2.  <<asdf-list-end>> asdf
>
> a paragraph.
>
> 3.  [@asdf-list-end] asdf
> ^^^
>
> this solution still fails if you have the first list in a separate
> file.  therefore i propose org id to solve that.
>
> for this, we could invoke the org id mechanism, or use id markers,
> which is an old, unimplemented idea that can substitute for a bunch of
> syntax with a consistent syntax.
>
> but in any case the above illustrates a less brittle solution than @
> numbers and using the existing number.
>
> does that make any sense?
>
> just a brainstorm, not to be taken too seriously if you think it's all
> wrong.
>
>
> On 12/1/19, Jens Lechtenboerger <jens.lechtenboerger@fsfe.org> wrote:
>> Hi there,
>>
>> currently, we have to write the following to continue an ordered
>> list from a value different from 1:
>>
>> 42. [@42] Answer
>> 43. Question?
>>
>> The requirement to type redundant information with the @-syntax
>> always struck me as odd.  For my export backend org-re-reveal, I
>> recently received a request to export lists without @-syntax to
>> their “correct” start values [1].
>>
>> Before working on my backend, I’d like to ask for feedback: Why was
>> the @-syntax introduced?  Of what non-obvious effects should I be
>> aware?
>>
>> What do you think about the attached patch that allows to omit the
>> @-syntax?  Controlled by the new variable
>> org-list-use-first-bullet-as-non-standard-counter, the code assigns
>> a counter value to the first list item from its bullet string if the
>> item
>> 1. does not specify a counter itself,
>> 2. has an alphanumeric bullet, and
>> 3. does not have a default start value (1, a, A).
>>
>> I hacked this as postprocessing step on the list’s struct.  Maybe an
>> Org expert could suggest how to do this in one pass?
>>
>> Best wishes
>> Jens
>>
>> P.S.  I did not work on documentation yet as I’m not sure that this
>> change is acceptable.
>>
>> [1] https://gitlab.com/oer/org-re-reveal/merge_requests/27
>>
>>
>
>
> --
> The Kafka Pandemic
>
> What is misopathy?
> https://thekafkapandemic.blogspot.com/2013/10/why-some-diseases-are-wronged.html
>
> The disease DOES progress. MANY people have died from it. And ANYBODY
> can get it at any time.
>


-- 
The Kafka Pandemic

What is misopathy?
https://thekafkapandemic.blogspot.com/2013/10/why-some-diseases-are-wronged.html

The disease DOES progress. MANY people have died from it. And ANYBODY
can get it at any time.