What is the best practice for setting the enum numbering for every level individually?

Questions
,
1

The normal enum numbering function has the problem, that the suffixes and prefixes are global for all levels of nestedness, but often, I want for example the first level to be 1. but the second level a), one with a dot the other with a parenthesis. My current solution is:

#set enum(full: true, numbering: (..nums) => {
    let numbers = nums.pos()
    if numbers.len() == 1 {
      numbering("I.", ..numbers)
    } else if numbers.len() == 2 {
      numbering("1.", numbers.at(1))
    } else if numbers.len() == 3 {
      numbering("a)", numbers.at(2))
    } else if numbers.len() == 4 {
      numbering("(1)", numbers.at(3))
    }
  })

But I feel like there could be a better solution using less ifs, and not the full: true. Is there a better way to do it, a best practice?

2

Isn’t using numbly as the solution (combined with full) also the answer here?

1 Like
3

You are right! Oh, wow. Now I feel dumb. I got away from using numbly for the section numbering, because I wanted to have the possibility that my sections start from section 0, which I can achieve manually but not with numbly, so I didn’t think of using it for the enum-numbering, but instead adapted my section numbering to also work there. Thanks for the anwer!

If anyone is numbering, the full equivalent code is:

  #import "@preview/numbly:0.1.0": numbly

  #set enum(
     full:true, 
     numbering: numbly("{1:I}.", "{2:1.}", "{3:a})","({4})" )
  )
1 Like
4

actually you can make numbly do this, just realize that numbly() is a function that returns a proper numbering function. So if you want to modify what numbers are put into numbly(...) you can write e.g. this:

#set heading(
  numbering: (fst, ..nums) => numbly("Top {1}:", "{1}.{2}.")(fst - 1, ..nums),
)

(I used the heading example from the other thread as zero-based roman numbering doesn’t make as much sense)

1 Like
5

This is great! I didn’t realize this. Actually I would like seeing this example in the numbly documentation. (Maybe I’ll do a pull request.) This makes the code so much cleaner and nicer. Thank you. :)

1 Like
6

Now I want something like this:

I. Introduction
II. Context
2.1 Sub-context 1
2.2 Sub-context 2

With the solution with numbly (numbly("{1:I}.", "{2:1.}", "{3:a})","({4})" )) I’m almost done, the problem is the Sub-context 1, which appears with 1. instead of 2.1, how I can fix this?

7

You can use numbly("{1:I}.", "{1:1}.{2:1.}", "{3:a})","({4})" ).