Re: [O] [patch, ox] Unnumbered headlines

[Rasmus]

Hi Nicolas,

Thanks for the comments.

Nicolas Goaziou <address@hidden> 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. . .