On Tue, 6 Sep 2011 15:27:07 -0300 Neil Leathers <neil.r.leath...@gmail.com> wrote:
> 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). Its allowed for the test to assume an default config -- as it always tests a default config. > 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. Thats besides the point I think. Stephans question was: "The behaviour of the numbering changed. Was that intended or is it an unintended change?" The best candidate to answer that question of cause is the author of the change that caused the different behavior (cc'ing author and commiter). Best, Bjoern -- https://launchpad.net/~bjoern-michaelsen _______________________________________________ LibreOffice mailing list LibreOffice@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/libreoffice
