Loading... |
Reply to author |
Edit post |
Move post |
Delete this post |
Delete this post and replies |
Change post date |
Print post |
Permalink |
Raw mail |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
In asciidoctor 0.1.3 numbering is limited to levels 0-3, which is hardcoded in the code. I'm thinking of extracting this hardcoded limit to an attribute (e.g., numbereddepth or something like that) that defaults to the current limit. Would there be any objection to this? Is the current limit there for a specific reason?
|
Loading... |
Reply to author |
Edit post |
Move post |
Delete this post |
Delete this post and replies |
Change post date |
Print post |
Permalink |
Raw mail |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
My guess is the limit is there because that's what AsciiDoc used. Initially this was as close to a compliant port as we could get. Since 0.1.1 we've branched out and made changes and extended things. I don't see any reason not to remove the limit.
On Fri, Aug 9, 2013 at 12:12 PM, pepijnve [via Asciidoctor :: Discussion] <[hidden email]> wrote: In asciidoctor 0.1.3 numbering is limited to levels 0-3, which is hardcoded in the code. I'm thinking of extracting this hardcoded limit to an attribute (e.g., numbereddepth or something like that) that defaults to the current limit. Would there be any objection to this? Is the current limit there for a specific reason? |
Loading... |
Reply to author |
Edit post |
Move post |
Delete this post |
Delete this post and replies |
Change post date |
Print post |
Permalink |
Raw mail |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
Administrator
|
In reply to this post by pepijnve
I completely agree. There is no reason why this limit has to be hardcoded. This is definitely a candidate for a document attribute (e.g., sectnumdepth). I have filed this as an issue. If you'd like to provide feedback, or give implementation a shot, your more than welcome!
On Fri, Aug 9, 2013 at 12:11 PM, pepijnve [via Asciidoctor :: Discussion] <[hidden email]> wrote: In asciidoctor 0.1.3 numbering is limited to levels 0-3, which is hardcoded in the code. I'm thinking of extracting this hardcoded limit to an attribute (e.g., numbereddepth or something like that) that defaults to the current limit. Would there be any objection to this? Is the current limit there for a specific reason? Dan Allen | http://google.com/profiles/dan.j.allen |
Loading... |
Reply to author |
Edit post |
Move post |
Delete this post |
Delete this post and replies |
Change post date |
Print post |
Permalink |
Raw mail |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
Administrator
|
In reply to this post by LightGuardjp
Exactly. The first goal was to be perfectly compliant with AsciiDoc. With the exception of minor exceptions here and there, we've reached that point. Now, we get to take a closer look at the syntax and behavior of the processor and decide how we want to evolve it. -Dan On Fri, Aug 9, 2013 at 12:19 PM, LightGuardjp [via Asciidoctor :: Discussion] <[hidden email]> wrote:
... [show rest of quote] Dan Allen | http://google.com/profiles/dan.j.allen
|
Loading... |
Reply to author |
Edit post |
Move post |
Delete this post |
Delete this post and replies |
Change post date |
Print post |
Permalink |
Raw mail |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
Administrator
|
In reply to this post by mojavelinux
This feature has been implemented for the upcoming 1.5.0 release.
See https://github.com/asciidoctor/asciidoctor/issues/549 for details. I decided to use an attribute named "sectnumlevels" to control the depth of numbering. -Dan |
Free forum by Nabble | Edit this page |