list corner case

[Waylan Limberg]

On Sun, Sep 7, 2008 at 9:24 PM, John MacFarlane <jgm at berkeley.edu> wrote:

> I'm curious how people think the following *should* be interpreted:

>

> -  one

> 2. two

>


Personally, I would prefer C.

For what it's worth, I'm also one of the few that seems to think
anything less than 4 spaces of indentation should be ignored in the
list syntax - but that's another discussion we've already had. I'm
just saying that may be part of the reason why I completely rule out
option B. Given the general lack of polarity of my opinion on the
indentation issue, I'm guessing most wouldn't like C for the same
reason, even if it is the only way *my* brain parses that list.

Although I seem to recall talk in the past about the following:

1. foo
- bar
- baz

Where the first item sets the list as ordered, and the rest just
defines the items. The argument made was that the author could then
reorder, insert or delete any random item without feeling the need to
renumber the items. Personally, I'm the type that's going to renumber
the items anyway, but I suspect that's why option A is the most
popular among current implementations.

I realize the actual numbering is irrelevant to an ordered list, as
long as the numbers are there, but it's about what's more readable and
I suppose out-of-order numbering is less readable to some than the
above mixed list. Readability really is the issue here and for those
that don't want to so strictly enforce indentation I can see how
option B looks logical, but for the above to work, then the converse
also needs to work (perhaps not technically - but for consistency)
which forces us to only accept option A - even if it's not my personal
favorite.

-- 
----
Waylan Limberg
waylan at gmail.com