From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Nick Dokos Subject: Re: [PATCH] Override the default class name with a new one. Date: Fri, 14 Jun 2013 05:50:17 -0400 Message-ID: <87k3lxxbqe.fsf@pierrot.dokosmarshall.org> References: <87hah2wn8y.fsf@news.tumashu-localhost.org> <8761xhftwi.fsf@news.tumashu-localhost.org> <87d2rp8370.fsf@pank.home> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Return-path: Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:41834) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1UnQeQ-0004kq-3i for emacs-orgmode@gnu.org; Fri, 14 Jun 2013 05:50:35 -0400 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1UnQeM-0001FG-5V for emacs-orgmode@gnu.org; Fri, 14 Jun 2013 05:50:34 -0400 Received: from plane.gmane.org ([80.91.229.3]:40086) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1UnQeL-0001Ev-Uv for emacs-orgmode@gnu.org; Fri, 14 Jun 2013 05:50:30 -0400 Received: from list by plane.gmane.org with local (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1UnQeL-0001E4-3h for emacs-orgmode@gnu.org; Fri, 14 Jun 2013 11:50:29 +0200 Received: from pool-108-7-96-134.bstnma.fios.verizon.net ([108.7.96.134]) by main.gmane.org with esmtp (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Fri, 14 Jun 2013 11:50:29 +0200 Received: from ndokos by pool-108-7-96-134.bstnma.fios.verizon.net with local (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Fri, 14 Jun 2013 11:50:29 +0200 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: emacs-orgmode@gnu.org Rasmus writes: > Feng Shu writes: > >> #+LATEX_CLASS: article >> #+LATEX_CLASS_NAME: ctexart > > I'm not sure this is the right approach. . . I can certainly see the > value of generating classes on the fly, though. But somehow the > proposed syntax just seems to counter-intuitive. I'm not sure how to > overcome this, but perhaps it would be better to allow for an argument > to LATEX_CLASS, e.g. > > (*) #+LATEX_CLASS: myclass :class-name ctexart. > That was what popped into my head as well - I didn't much care for the OP's approach. Now that I've thought about it some more, I'm not sure I like this one much better... > as e.g. the INCLUDE command. Of course (*) is somewhat different from > how stuff like this is usually handled, cf. e.g. LATEX_CLASS_OPTIONS. > ...but this sounds a bit more promising: maybe LATEX_CLASS_OPTIONS can be eliminated in favor of LATEX_CLASS with arguments: #+LATEX_CLASS: key :class-name foo :class-options a4paper,12pt where "key" selects from org-latex-classes (and is optional, default "article"), class-name is optional and defaults to key (or article if key is absent). -- Nick