Bastien <address@hidden> wrote: > Ulf Stegemann <address@hidden> writes: > >> I had a quick look at `org-export-number-lines' and the following seems >> to work smoothly ... > > Thanks for the patch. One problem though: now the first link (from the > manuals example) looks like "sc" but there is no "sc" left in the source > code. This is a bit confusing, no? So if we plan to make references to > lines of code, it make sense to have either the line numbering or the > labels (or both). What do you think? Right, I agree with your observation but I think I wouldn't with your conclusion. I don't think that this is a problem. From the author's point of view I think he/she knows what's going on since this is not the default behaviour and the `-r' switch actually has to be added. And after all we are talking about links. And as with any other link if the link target is self-explanatory: fine, then I can use it as link name. If it is not, I should choose something less confusing for the reader. Translated to the situation we have here this means: I can choose a self-explanatory reference and use this or I can give the link a label with a clear indication of what the link is about. >From the reader's point of view there's no confusion either because he/she can always follow the link and see where this leads. I absolutely second that confusing behaviour should be avoided whenever possible but I don't think any confusion will occur here. Ulf
RetroSearch is an open source project built by @garambo | Open a GitHub Issue
Search and Browse the WWW like it's 1997 | Search results from DuckDuckGo
HTML:
3.2
| Encoding:
UTF-8
| Version:
0.7.4