On 5/5/11 May 5 -6:03 PM, Nick Dokos wrote:
> Robert Goldman wrote:
>
>> AFAICT there is an off-by-one-error here. I.e., if I tell it that the
>> :minlevel is 2, then my included level one headers get level 3, and if I
>> tell it that the :minlevel is 1, then they get level 2.
>>
>
> I think that's the desired behavior. That allows text before the first
> headline in the included file (level 0) to properly take its place in the
> result tree.
>
>> So it seems like :minlevel is actually being interpreted as a level
>> *increment*, rather than a minimum...
>>
>
> I don't really understand your comment: level N in the included file
> becomes level :minlevel+N in the result (N = 0, 1, 2, ...). What were you
> expecting?
I was expecting the standard English usage (always dangerous in a
technical context!).
The minimum of 1,2,3 is 1.
But here the thing we are calling "minimum" for 1,2,3 would be zero.
Suggestion: the term :levelinc[rement] would be more indicative of the
meaning. I think if you read your explanation, you will see that the
thing referred to as a minimum is really an increment...
It may be too late to make that change without disruption, so the
alternative would be to modify the manual to make the meaning clearer.
Best,
r
