On Wed, Sep 20, 2017, 6:25 AM Nicolas Goaziou <m...@nicolasgoaziou.fr> wrote:
> 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? > -- Kaushal Modi
