Re: [patch, ox] Unnumbered headlines

[Nicolas Goaziou <mail@nicolasgoaziou.fr>]

Hello,

Rasmus <rasmus@gmx.us> writes:

> 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. 

I think it would be nice to keep "sec-NUM", with NUM matching current
numbering, for numbered headlines. I'm not against a simple global
counter for unnumbered headlines:

  \label{sec-1}
  \label{unnumbered-1}
  \label{sec-2}
  \label{unnumbered-2}

or in the following example

  * H1
  ** H2
     :PROPERTIES:
     :UNNUMBERED: t
     :END:
  *** H3
  *** H4
  * H5
  ** H6

the labelling scheme

 \label{sec-1}
 \label{unnumbered-1}
 \label{unnumbered-2}
 \label{unnumbered-3}
 \label{sec-2}
 \label{sec-2-1}

>> 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?

The former, but see below.

> 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. . .

Actually, there was a small bug in the code, now fixed. `latex' back-end
is expected to use "hyperref" when headline in unnumbered.

> To be clear: you are happy if it uses the \hyperref[·]{·} in LaTeX,
> but not \ref{·} for unnumbered?

You are the LaTeX expert. Isn't it reasonable?


Regards,

-- 
Nicolas Goaziou