Re: [O] How to get numbered lists (1), (2) , … ?

[Marius Hofert]

Hi all,

I am quite impressed by this discussion, thanks a lot.
I am an org-mode user for just a couple of days, and an emacs user for four 
weeks today. Needless to say, I can't contribute anything useful to this 
discussion. 
The only thing(s) I would like to say is/are:
(1) If it is not too complicated from a technical point of view, I would 
strongly recommend to enable lists like (1), (2), etc.  I gave some reasons in 
one of my earlier e-mails in this thread. There are many more (from a 
typography point of view, but also from a technical point of view [e.g., if you 
have auto-pairing of parentheses enabled, it's just more convenient.]). 
(2) From a LaTeX point of view, I am sure the experts here (and I mean everyone 
in this thread except me) know the LaTeX package "enumitem". It gives the 
greatest flexibility of creating lists I know of and behaves better in many 
circumstances than other enumerate-like environments. So I can only recommend 
using this approach for making lists (in which way this is possible/desirable I 
can't tell since I'm not an org-mode expert).

I will certainly become a heavy org-mode user in the next months/years. Lists 
like (1), (2),... I would definitely use a lot.

Cheers,

Marius


On 2011-10-14, at 14:05 , Jambunathan K wrote:

> 
>>  What about letting go those two variables and create
>>  `org-list-bullet-types', which would be a list of strings like:
>> 
>>           '("-" "+" "*" "1." "1)" "(1)" "a." "a)" "A)" "A.")
>> 
>>  It would be hard-coded but every bullet type could be opt-in or
>>  opt-out via customize. The default value should be as short as
>>  possible like '("-" "+" "*" "1." "a.").
>> 
>>  I can work it out in a few days if we agree.
> 
> What percentage of users (OK, not percentage of users but numbers of
> users) you think will *actually* exercise the opt-in and opt-out
> configuration if provided?
> 
> If the number of hands raised is in single digits, I would assume that
> it is more of a niche feature and let go of it.
> 
> Is it psychologically very taxing to see 1. instead of a (1) in an Org
> buffer. Could it be so taxing that a user's productivity will be
> impacted by it?
> 
> Or 
> 
> Is it that more varieties of bullets is needed for creating "rich"
> deeply nested lists so that each level of the list can take on a
> different bullet for better differentiation.
> --