On Thu, Sep 21, 2017 at 11:39 AM, Rasmus <ras...@gmx.us> wrote:
> 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.
>
Hi Rasmus,
yes, I am aware that LaTeX does use unnumbered for this, but this is
backend specific implementation, and not an argument about the logic of
this approach.
Carsten
>
> Rasmus
>
> --
> I almost cut my hair, it happened just the other day
>
>
>
