Hi Nicolas,
On Aug 7, 2010, at 2:41 PM, Nicolas Goaziou wrote:
Hello, I'm still into lists,
First, my apologies that I have so far not found the time to test your improved list implementation. I think this is a far-reaching change, which is why it needs careful testing before we apply it. I really hope to get to this soon. Have you had any testing feedback from anyone else so far? Have you tested it in all the export backends?
and I'm wondering about the global usefulness of `org-auto-renumber-ordered-lists', provided that: - it isn't noticeably slower to renumber and fix a list than to simply fix its indentation; - you can use [...@start:num] to enforce a special numbering; - some actions on a list will renumber it whatever the value of this variable is. So, I'd like to hear about other users. Do you set this variable to nil? If so, what is your use case?
I don't think anyone sets this to nil. But there is a use case for this, if someone wants some strange specific numbering, then it might be useful to allow turning it off. There is no harm in having this possibility.
If there's a need for decreasing numbers or numbers increasing by more than one, I could add [...@step:num] and [...@start:num,@step:num] as possibilities, but it looks a bit overkill to me.
To me as well.
Anyway, the idea behind this would be to: - remove `org-maybe-renumber-ordered-list', - remove `org-maybe-renumber-ordered-list-safe', - remove this variable, - rename `org-fix-bullet-type' to `org-fix-bullet', - call `org-fix-bullet' unconditionally when acting on a list instead of having to decide if the function should renumber or simply fix indentation.
While this sounds reasonable - it also unnecessary to me. Why fix something that works? - Carsten _______________________________________________ Emacs-orgmode mailing list Please use `Reply All' to send replies to the list. Emacs-orgmode@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/emacs-orgmode
