Re: [patch] ox-koma-letter

[Michael Strey <mstrey@strey.biz>]

On Tue, Feb 26, 2013 at 10:14:28PM +0100, Rasmus wrote:

[...]

> > Wouldn't it be better to use Markus Kohm's concept of letter class
> > options to set all the static stuff?
> 
> Potentially.  What do you mean by "letter class options"?  Are you
> referring to customized LCO files or do you refer to e.g. customized
> org-latex-classes?  

I mean customized LCO files.  For my former company I had made a letter
class for business letters based on scrlttr2.cls with two LCO files.
the first LCO file *company.lco* contained the general information about
the company (address, bank account, etc.).  A second LCO file
*my_name.lco* contained the personal information of (e-mail address,
name, phone extension).  With *my_name.lco* calling *company.lco* the
document class command for my letter finally was:

\documentclass[my_name]{our_company_letter_class}

With suitable setting of org-latex-classes not even the LCO feature
would be needed in ox-koma-letter.  However I would leave it there for
more flexibility.


[...]

> Even when using a dedicated LCO files and or org-latex-classes it
> might be appropriate to overwrite variables.  

Yes, I can imagine such cases.  My problem with the current
implementation was, that for instance, the phone number was preset in
org-latex-classes.  That urged me to customize this variable although
everything was already well defined in *my_name.lco*.  So, please take
care to preset such variables with nil, where nil shall have the meaning
of 'ignore this variable'.


> In any case I don't have a strong opinion on this issue and your
> approach also makes sense.

Maybe we should write a user guide *before* further implementation steps.


> >>   2. Added AFTER_CLOSING and AFTER_LETTER keywords for arbitrary code
> >>      after \closing{.} and \end{letter}, respectively.
> >>      [...]
> >>      b. Would it be better to have a dedicated, say, PS and ENCL rather
> >>         than the generic AFTER_CLOSING?
> > I would opt for dedicated variables.
> 
> Fine by be..  At the very least these should come in the order that
> they are specified in the document, I guess.  E.g. I should be able to
> place ENCL before PS in the output, if I so desire.

Mmmh ... never thought about this aspect.  I simply dictated the order
of CC, ENCL and PS in my implementation.  Thus your current
AFTER_CLOSING is the best solution, if you want to provide full
flexibility.

> For arbitrary code I find AFTER_CLOSING and AFTER_LETTER nice.
> E.g. for pdfpages inclusions.

Agreed.

Best regards
-- 
Michael Strey 
www.strey.biz