> The question is, is the below patch (which makes that subsequentcheck > failure go away) right in adapting the failing test to the new code, or > does this failure actually uncover unwanted side effects of the new code > (I'm esp. unsure about changing "A. 1." to "A 1")?
The approach is too simple. The first problem is that the level separator is not necessarily a "." (and is configurable at each level in other word processors). Also, while it is understandable in the case described it is not necessarily the desired always especially for lists with multiple levels. When in the configuration options of a list there should be a toggle for whether to remove the final list level separation suffix in references. I don't see removing internal separators (or level prefix) and I can see that sometime a user might not want the trailing suffix removed. Neil Leathers _______________________________________________ LibreOffice mailing list LibreOffice@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/libreoffice
