Mixing incremental and non-incremental lists of different types in markdown

[InsanePrawn]

[whoops, I guess this should've gone into Discussions first]

Describe your proposed improvement and the problem it solves.

I'd like to have syntax for mixing incremental lists with non-incremental sublists for md -> beamer pdf.

This is not a duplicate of #3269 as I'm explicitly talking about mixing lists of different kinds.

For example:

# my awesome slide

::: incremental

1. foo
    - foo is pretty good
    - foo also has some issues
1. bar
    - bar is also a viable candidate
    - bar is quite costly

:::

I'd like some syntax to express that the outer numbered list is to be shown incrementally, while the inner bulleted lists show their content non-incrementally, once their numeric entry is revealed.

I haven't touched raw LaTeX in a couple years, but i think/suppose that Beamer can do this. (?)

Now, as to what that syntax would look like, i'm not sure.

As I'm not familiar with the inner workings of pandoc, i can make some guesses to possible syntax solutions without any estimates of technical feasability.

Maybe optional parameters to ::: [non]incremental could help here?

e.g.:

1. ::: incremental recursive=false
2. ::: incremental depth=1

Describe alternatives you've considered.

I tried nesting ::nonincremental blocks inside the numbered list, but that mostly seemed to break the list.
But maybe that was a skill issue on my end?

I did not try any inline LaTeX. If there's a few lines that can already solve this, I'm all ears :)

[jgm]

I think it will already work to use the blockquote syntax for incremental lists.

::: incremental

1. foo

   > - foo is also good
   > - bar ba

:::

Putting the list in a block quote reverses its incremental status (without creating an actual block quote).
This is an old hack from before we had Divs.

[InsanePrawn]

Thanks for the response!

I read of the blockquote-for-incremental behaviour, but I would've never thought that the block quote actually inverts it - if that's the expected behaviour, maybe the docs could mention that (or did I just miss the mention?)

However, it's also not working for me. (both levels are still incremental)

Am I holding it wrong?

## Meet the Players

Who would win?


\footnotesize

::: incremental

1. **IBM**
    
    > - should need no introduction
    > - think Typewriter... no wait, Personal Computer!
    > - owns RedHat nowadays, btw
1. **Tegic Communications**
    
    > - the inventors and licensors of T9 typing
1. **Nuance Communications**
    
    > - 1994 spin-off from the non-profit "Speech Technology and Research" lab
    > - developed the first large-scale robo-hotline for UPS in 1997
    > - Dragon speech-to-text: ever visited a doctor or lawyer?
1. **Google / Apple**
    
    > - a major chunk of the silicon valley stock market  
    (whenever nvidia isn't riding a hype bubble)

:::

[jgm]

You seem to be right. I hadn't tried it in beamer, was just going by the source, which omits the [<+->] on the inner bullet list:

% pandoc -t beamer
# Slide

::: incremental
1. a

   > - b
   > - c
2. d
:::
^D
\begin{frame}{Slide}
\protect\phantomsection\label{slide}
\begin{enumerate}[<+->]
\item
  a

  \begin{itemize}
  \tightlist
  \item
    b
  \item
    c
  \end{itemize}
\item
  d
\end{enumerate}
\end{frame}

Given that the <+-> instruction is lacking here, I wonder whether it is even possible in beamer to have an inner list that isn't incremental? What would the LaTeX code be?

[InsanePrawn]

I find it incredibly impossible to find any good docs on the [<+->] syntax via google :(

However, an LLM was somehow able to give me this, which works for me(TM)

\begin{enumerate}[<+->]
\item
  a

  \begin{itemize}[<.->]
  \tightlist
  \item
    b
  \item
    c
  \end{itemize}
\item
  d
  \begin{itemize}[<.->]
  \tightlist
  \item
    e
  \item
    f
  \end{itemize}
\item
  x
  \begin{itemize}[<.->]
  \tightlist
  \item
    y
  \item
    z
  \end{itemize}
\end{enumerate}

[jgm]

OK, so we need an explicit [<.->] on lists that are sublists of incremental lists but not incremental themselves...