From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Michael Strey Subject: Re: [patch] ox-koma-letter Date: Wed, 27 Feb 2013 11:51:02 +0100 Message-ID: <20130227105102.GV24632@strey.biz> References: <87vc9gkund.fsf@pank.eu> <20130226123819.GQ24632@strey.biz> <87mwuqg4ln.fsf@pank.iue.private> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Return-path: Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([208.118.235.92]:41156) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1UAebP-0002xO-WC for emacs-orgmode@gnu.org; Wed, 27 Feb 2013 05:51:13 -0500 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1UAebO-0007Vk-ND for emacs-orgmode@gnu.org; Wed, 27 Feb 2013 05:51:11 -0500 Received: from mx2.supremebox.com ([198.23.53.42]:51676 helo=mx11.supremebox.com) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1UAebO-0007VZ-K9 for emacs-orgmode@gnu.org; Wed, 27 Feb 2013 05:51:10 -0500 Received: from [77.189.136.197] (helo=localhost) by mx11.supremebox.com with esmtpa (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from ) id 1UAebN-0001gK-DY for emacs-orgmode@gnu.org; Wed, 27 Feb 2013 10:51:09 +0000 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <87mwuqg4ln.fsf@pank.iue.private> 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 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