[Tugindia] Enumerate again

[Kapil Hari Paranjape]

Hello,

Manoj wrote:
> > This is a "flaw" in article.cls according to me. In other words,
> > \p@enumii should be \labelenumi and \p@enumiii should be
> > \labelenumi\labelenumii so that if the items labels are
> > concatenated
> > to generate references of lower depth---at least by default!
> 
> I did not quite follow you on this point. These are the lines that I
> have seen in article.cls ; \p@enumxxx is concatenated \labelenumyyy
> for all yyy less than xxx, but for the periods, which, IMO, will look
> bad on the reference. This is same in report.cls .
> 
> \newcommand\labelenumi{\theenumi.}
> \newcommand\labelenumii{(\theenumii)}
> \newcommand\labelenumiii{\theenumiii.}
> \newcommand\labelenumiv{\theenumiv.}
> \renewcommand\p@enumii{\theenumi}
> \renewcommand\p@enumiii{\theenumi(\theenumii)}
> \renewcommand\p@enumiv{\p@enumiii\theenumiii}
> 
> Will you elaborate your point?

Well, I'm just being a bit obstinate perhaps.
I think it should be:

\renewcommand\p@enumii{\labelenumi}
\renewcommand\p@enumiii{\labelenumi\labelenumii}

and so on. The point is that the formatting of references should
really be outside the scope of the article class once the author
has anyway decided to write labels differently. Making the reference
formats part of an "@" command means these are at least partially
invisible/inviolate for authors (for example most journal author
guidelines do not like authors to use \makeatletter).

Thanks and regards,

Kapil.

-- 
Always use GPG for privacy; finger -l kapil@imsc.ernet.in or
 http://www.imsc.ernet.in/~kapil/gpg.html for my Public Key.
------------------------------------------------------------------
 768D/FED1D08D 2000-02-19 Kapil Hari Paranjape <kapil@imsc.ernet.in>
1024g/CECEB39B 2000-02-19 Kapil Hari Paranjape <kapil@imsc.ernet.in>
Key fingerprint = B6D2 F4F2 A37C B887 DFA2  9100 5F22 0D1D FED1 D08D
--