Phil Cook wrote:
> And lo on Wed, 21 Nov 2007 15:52:00 -0000, Invisible <voi### [at] devnull> did 
> spake, saying:
> 
>>>  Does that make any sense?
>>
>> Not really, no.
> 
> It's possible to mix two or more lists together each possessing their 
> own numbering scheme. So you could have
> 
> 1
>  1
>  2
> 2
>  3
>  4
> 
> with 1 & 2 being part of one list and 1,2,3 & 4 being a second list. I 
> can move any items from 1234 around without changing 12's numbering. So 
> if you get something like this with all the numbers at the same level 
> it's difficult to see what item belongs to what list and Outline won't 
> help you there.

Oh good.

And this is a design *feature*?

>> However, since every page is virtually identical and I created them 
>> all with a large cut and paste operation, presumably it is now 
>> impossible to unlink them and restore deterministic behaviour?
> 
> Reset to Normal Ctrl+A Ctrl+Shift+N or skip the Ctrl+A and just Normal 
> the lists.

I'll give it a go...

>> Anyway, I just finished downloading MiKTeX. I'm going to write the 
>> ****ing test plan with LaTeX. At least that knows how to number things 
>> consistently. (Not to mention I don't have to spend 20 minutes 
>> tweaking the spacing to get a reasonably printout.)
> 
> Oo doesn't the QA specifically state what package you have to use to 
> write it up in? ;-)

Actually... no.

They will, however, almost assuredly complain about it being the wrong 
typeface.

...all of which is rather moot, since I am insufficiently talented to 
convince TeX to generate a box that fills all available space on the 
page! >_<

Let's face it, trying to do nontrivial layout with LaTeX isn't much fun 
either, is it? *sigh* I'm surrounded...

Post a reply to this message