And lo on Wed, 21 Nov 2007 16:55:45 -0000, Invisible <voi### [at] devnull> did  
spake, saying:

> 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*?

I can see why they'd need to link each item in a list together, but that  
it fails to break once moved out of the list - hmmm.

>>> 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...

Should get rid of lists and links so you can re-number from scratch, just  
don't go moving items between lists.

>>> 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.

Comic Sans?

-- 
Phil Cook

--
I once tried to be apathetic, but I just couldn't be bothered
http://flipc.blogspot.com

Post a reply to this message