From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Nick Dokos Subject: Re: latex checkboxes Date: Thu, 16 Jun 2011 22:02:34 -0400 Message-ID: <17848.1308276154@alphaville.dokosmarshall.org> References: <16191.1308264765@alphaville.dokosmarshall.org> Reply-To: nicholas.dokos@hp.com Return-path: Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([140.186.70.92]:60241) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1QXOOX-000390-00 for emacs-orgmode@gnu.org; Thu, 16 Jun 2011 22:02:50 -0400 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1QXOOV-00078n-CS for emacs-orgmode@gnu.org; Thu, 16 Jun 2011 22:02:48 -0400 Received: from vms173005pub.verizon.net ([206.46.173.5]:57995) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1QXOOV-00078d-3r for emacs-orgmode@gnu.org; Thu, 16 Jun 2011 22:02:47 -0400 Received: from alphaville.dokosmarshall.org ([unknown] [173.76.32.106]) by vms173005.mailsrvcs.net (Sun Java(tm) System Messaging Server 7u2-7.02 32bit (built Apr 16 2009)) with ESMTPA id <0LMW00H3YWCAW470@vms173005.mailsrvcs.net> for emacs-orgmode@gnu.org; Thu, 16 Jun 2011 21:02:40 -0500 (CDT) In-reply-to: Message from Skip Collins of "Thu, 16 Jun 2011 21:37:05 EDT." List-Id: "General discussions about Org-mode." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: emacs-orgmode-bounces+geo-emacs-orgmode=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Sender: emacs-orgmode-bounces+geo-emacs-orgmode=m.gmane.org@gnu.org To: Skip Collins Cc: nicholas.dokos@hp.com, emacs-orgmode@gnu.org Skip Collins wrote: > On Thu, Jun 16, 2011 at 6:52 PM, Nick Dokos wrote: > > I like it! Well, almost all of it: I'd vote for \large, rather than \LARGE, > > but otherwise it looks good to me. > > Can we compromise on \Large ? :-) > As Tom Dye pointed out, you can customize :cbon and :cboff, so no compromise necessary: you say tomAHto and I say tomEIto... The only fly in the ointment is the hardcoding of [-] but that will be fixed a few seconds after Nicolas Goaziou gets wind of this thread :-) > > ,---- > > | \item [{\parbox[][][c]{\wd0}{\LARGE$\square$}}] a > > `---- > > I tried the optional preamble for \item in a very naive fashion. LaTeX > threw an error. Maybe I did it wrong. Or maybe the preamble is > fragile. Regardless, there is probably a simple solution. Even for > enumerated lists, it makes sense to place the checkbox with the list > number rather than with the item text. > I don't know what you mean by "preamble" here. I get no errors from the above in any case: just even, nice-looking squares and no bullets. I have not tried enumerated lists. > Regarding the extra square brackets after \parbox, I was just using > the documentation I found at > http://www.tug.org/tutorials/latex2e/$5cparbox.html : > Thanks for the reference. I was going by Lamport's book which does not mention them. I guess things have changed since 1994 - who'd have thunk it? Nick