emacs-orgmode
[Top][All Lists]

## Re: [O] How to get numbered lists (1), (2) , … ?

 From: Carsten Dominik Subject: Re: [O] How to get numbered lists (1), (2) , … ? Date: Fri, 14 Oct 2011 14:14:23 +0200

On 14.10.2011, at 13:31, Nicolas Goaziou wrote:

> Hello,
>
>
>>
>>
>>> What do you mean by "better solution"? As far as I can tell, your
>>> approach is precisely what Suvayu pointed to.
>>
>> No: what Suvayu pointed to can be done with the standard latex exporter,
>> so it would not require changes to org-list-generic-to-latex. Just add
>> something like this at the top of your org file:
>>
>> #+LATEX: \renewcommand{\theenumi}{(\arabic{enumi})}
>>
>> It's better in that it is simpler. There are drawbacks however: the
>> above produces lists like this:
>>
>> (1). foo
>> (2). bar
>>
>> with a period after the closing paren.
>>
>>> Using your approach, of course much more is possible, please look at
>>> the create "enumitem" package with all its customizations.
>>>
>>
>> That is true: which one is "better" depends on one's requirements (both
>> the desired output and how much pain one is willing to suffer in order
>> to get there).
>>
>>> But this approach is a no-go for me (at least at the moment) mainly
>>> due to the following reasons (please let me know if I'm wrong, I'm a
>>> total newbie to org-mode):
>>
>>> 1) I have about 40 lists in one file. Having to put in special LaTeX
>>> commands is not an option (maybe on only has to type it in once, but
>>> then it can easily get overseen, e.g., when you move lists around and
>>> the one containing the LaTeX commands is not the first one in the
>>> document anymore)
>>
>> That's no problem: the LATEX_HEADER line goes in once at the top
>> of the org file. You can move lists around at will.
>>
>>> 2) org-mode is basically a "better" text-mode. I don't want to have
>>> LaTeX code in there if I print it as a .txt file.
>>>
>>> Is there a solution without having to put #+LATEX_HEADER:
>>> \usepackage{enumerate} before each list? Can this be set anywhere in
>>> the preferences?
>>>
>>
>> You can customize the latex preamble that org adds to latex files to do
>> that. The disadvantage is that you get the modified preamble always.
>> See the org-export-latex-packages-alist variable for one way to do that.
>>
>>> But I assume that I still have to put in lists in org-mode like this:
>>> 1.,2.,... or 1),2),... and can't put them in like this (1),(2),...?
>>
>> Correct: that would require changes to org-list.el I think - but Nicolas
>> will have to say the final word on this. All the solutions so far work
>> by modifying the latex output only, not the way you enter the list into
>> the org file.
>
> - On the Org part:
>
>  I have nothing against (1) as item bullets, as it doesn't interfere
>  with any existing Org syntax.

That is not the only criterion.  Adding new syntax elements make more
ASCII sequences special.  The Org markup is a heuristic set of
special elements, and there is merrit in keeping it small.  We already
have more bullets and in particular numbered types - and so far
I have not seen a compelling reason to add more.

- Carsten

> I just think it shouldn't be available
>  by default (much like alphabetical ordered lists).
>
>  The implementation isn't hard /per se/ (at least less changes are
>  required than implementing, for example, roman numbered lists), but
>  I also think there should be some cleanup with regards to item
>  bullets. So far, there is `org-plain-list-ordered-item-terminator' and
>  `org-alphabetical-lists' to tweak them. We should avoid adding a third
>  one.
>
>  What about letting go those two variables and create
>  `org-list-bullet-types', which would be a list of strings like:
>
>           '("-" "+" "*" "1." "1)" "(1)" "a." "a)" "A)" "A.")
>
>  It would be hard-coded but every bullet type could be opt-in or
>  opt-out via customize. The default value should be as short as
>  possible like '("-" "+" "*" "1." "a.").
>
>  I can work it out in a few days if we agree.
>
> - On the LaTeX part:
>
>  Most of the time, it's better to let LaTeX choose its bullets than
>  enforcing code produced to mimic Org buffer. In other words, a "(1)"
>  bullet should only mean "enumerate item" instead of "enumerate item
>  like (1)".
>
>  Though, in the past months, I have been working on a overhaul of the
>  whole export system (as a part of a bigger project). If I ever finish
>  it, and if it ever hits Org core, the LaTeX back-end should make it
>  easier to use "inparaenum" and "paraitem" packages directly from Org
>
>  For now, I think solutions offered in this thread are sufficient, if
>  not practical.
>
>
> Regards,
>
> --
> Nicolas Goaziou
>