Carsten Dominik <domi...@uva.nl> writes:
>> I believe this change was made to fix the case of mixed numbered and
>> unnumbered headings in the TOC.
>>
>> Please see the other thread[1] where I suggest supporting the "case 3"
>> where we want TOC where all headings are numbered i.e. the case of num:nil.
>
> This would address my main concern and make it usable, yes.
>
> It is another question if the association of unnumbered and not toc-listed
> is a useful one in general. The cleanest would be to have properties like
> NO_TOC_LISTING and NOT_NUMBERED or so to allow local control. Conflating
> it with the global switches I find a bit confusing.
AFAIK NOT_NUMBERED is the UNNUMBERED property.
To support an UNNUMBERED and "UNTOCED" entry in ox-latex /in general/, we
would need to have something like KOMA-Script’s \addsec. Alternatively,
one can manually add \addcontentsline{toc}{LEVEL}{NAME}, but these are not
indented (see https://tex.stackexchange.com/a/212439/3878). Also, headers
aren’t updated, though this is less of a concern.
Otherwise, this can only be archived by setting the secnumdepth counter to
a sufficiently low value (say 0 for unnumbered chapters) in which case
everything below that number is also unnumbered.
Rasmus
--
I almost cut my hair, it happened just the other day
