[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [O] setting local variables

From: Carsten Dominik
Subject: Re: [O] setting local variables
Date: Wed, 20 Sep 2017 18:17:34 +0200

On Thu, Sep 7, 2017 at 5:01 PM, Eric Abrahamsen <address@hidden> wrote:
Nicolas Goaziou <address@hidden> writes:


> So, any objection to have all major back-ends ignoring unnumbered trees
> from TOC, and make that an Org specificity?

Hi Nicolas,

OK, now I have read this thread.

I do object to removing unnumbered headers from the toc.  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.

I am sorry that I did not see this earlier - but I really think this change should be reverted.  If there is a desire to have sections that are not put into the toc, it should be separated from the num: and toc: switches and depend, for example on properties instead.

The fact that in LaTeX "unnumbered" is linked to the question if something is in the toc is some kind of mistake, this behaviour is very specific to LaTeX-like systems (including TeXInfo), but it is not a very logical system IMO.


Sounds good!

reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]