On 3/3/24 07:55, Jonathan Corbet wrote: > Akira Yokosawa <akiyks@xxxxxxxxx> writes: > >>> -1) If you use a facility then #include the file that defines/declares >>> +#. If you use a facility then #include the file that defines/declares >>> that facility. Don't depend on other header files pulling in ones >>> that you use. >> >> Wait. This will render the list starting from: >> >> 1. If you use ... >> I have already said that Stephen Rothwell wanted this #1 item to be at the top of the checklist. That makes it easy to tell people to "see submit-checklist item #1". >> In patch 1/1, you didn't change the ")". >> >> It was Jani who suggested "#.", but "#)" would work just fine. > > So I'm a little confused. Is the objection that it renders the number > as "1." rather than "1)"? That doesn't seem like the biggest of deals, > somehow, but am I missing something? > > A bigger complaint I might raise is that auto-numbering restarts the > enumeration in each subsection, so we have a lot of steps #1, which is a > definite change from before. ack > That, of course, can be fixed by giving an explicit starting number in > each subsection, partially defeating the point of the change in the > first place. ack > I honestly have to wonder: does this document need the enumerated list > at all? We don't refer to the numbers anywhere, so I don't think there > is much useful information there. How about just using regular bulleted > lists instead? That also works. > That said, I don't have strong feelings one way or the other, and can > certainly apply it as-is if that's the consensus on what we should do. My preference is to leave the submit-checklist numbered from 1 to N, without a repeated #1 in each section. But I'm not hung up on it. thanks. -- #Randy
