Hi Nicolas,
Thanks for the comments.
Nicolas Goaziou <m...@nicolasgoaziou.fr> writes:
>> Okay, I returned to my first hack (which never made it to this list).
>> Basically, I ID everything. Unnumbered sections get the id
>> "unnumbered-sec-COUNTER" and numbered sections get the id
>> "sec-COUNTER".
>>
>> Perhaps you will find it too much of a hack.
>
> I don't think it is a hack. I am just pointing out that how we refer
> internally to headlines has an effect on output clarity. I let you
> strike a balance between clarity and easiness of implementation. Note
> that the internal reference can be a bit cryptic (e.g. num-1-1 and
> nonum-2).
With the last patch it gets weird when you have mixed trees, like this:
* numbered
** unnumbered
:PROPERTIES:
:UNNUMBERED: t
:END:
The LaTeX output is:
\section{numbered}
\label{sec-1}
\subsection*{unnumbered}
\label{unnumbered-sec-0-1}
Perhaps it would be nicer to use a single counter rather than two?
Right now, this
* numbered1
* unnumbered2
:PROPERTIES:
:UNNUMBERED: t
:END:
* numbered2
* unnumbered2
:PROPERTIES:
:UNNUMBERED: t
:END:
produces
\section{numbered1}
\label{sec-1}
\section*{unnumbered2}
\label{unnumbered-sec-1}
\section{numbered2}
\label{sec-2}
\section*{unnumbered2}
\label{unnumbered-sec-2}
But perhaps this is nicer?
\label{sec-1}
\label{unnumbered-sec-2}
\label{sec-3}
\label{unnumbered-sec-4}
In particular for mixed, nested trees.
>>> At the moment, referring to an unnumbered section displays its name.
>>
>> In some modes, yes. In LaTeX it produces a \ref{·} that LaTeX will
>> laugh at.
>
> This is incorrect.
>
> #+options: num:nil
>
> * Headline
> :PROPERTIES:
> :CUSTOM_ID: test
> :END:
> This is a link to [[#test]].
>
> will produce
>
> \section*{Headline}
> \label{sec-1}
> This is a link to \hyperref[sec-1]{Headline}.
Is *my statement* incorrect or is the current *output* incorrect?
On my PC, when I refer to an unnumbered headline I get
\ref{UNNUMBERED}, but since it's after a \section* it will produce
nothing or a subsequent element. But I *did* forget to try the patch
with emacs -q and maybe that's why I'm not seeing \hyperref's. . .
>> If you have a better idea than using the title I'm all ears!
>
> On the contrary, using the title is what is usually done. I'm all for
> it.
To be clear: you are happy if it uses the \hyperref[·]{·} in LaTeX,
but not \ref{·} for unnumbered?
>>> Comparing symbols with `equal' is a sin beyond redemption. Use `eq'.
>>
>> Why, out of curiosity? I though equal was like the meaner, tougher
>> eq, that gets shit right, but is a bit more expensive.
>
> This is about using the right tool for the job. Unless you mess with the
> obarray, two symbols with the same name are guaranteed to be `eq'.
> There's really no reason to use anything else.
OK.
Thanks,
Rasmus
--
And I faced endless streams of vendor-approved Ikea furniture. . .
