Re: [PATCH] Improve configurability of ox-koma-letter

[Viktor Rosenfeld <listuser36@gmail.com>]

Hi Rasmus,

Rasmus wrote:

> >> In a similar spirit to subject is firsthead.  First head is displayed
> >> by default in scrlttr2 as far as I recall, which is annoying.
> >
> > Is firsthead something that you change on a letter-by-letter basis? Or
> > do you configure it once for your letters and never change it? In the
> > latter case the configuration can be moved of to an LCO file. In the
> > former case an option would be nice. I had to actually change the
> > options I introduced so far for different letters (e.g., I don't want
> > foldmarks if I send the letter by email). 
> 
> How I use scrlttr2: I rarely use firsthead as I find ugly.  I use
> firstfoot all of the time and I change it regularly.  E.g. for some
> letters I include bank addresse.  Still, I see your point.

So firsthead would be a boolean export option whereas firstfood would be
a variable to set its content? I can see the use.
 
> >> If we make foldmark an option should it not be a string accepting
> >> values from "Table 4.3.: Combinable values for the configuration of
> >> folding marks with option foldmarks" in the KOMA-Script manual?
> >
> > Same as above. If I read the scrguide correctly, the foldmark variable
> > can be set multiple times, e.g.,
> > #+BEGIN_SRC latex
> > \KOMAoption{foldmarks}{blmtP}
> > \KOMAoption{foldmarks}{true}
> > #+END_SRC
> 
> This is true.
> 
> > The first line sets the behavior (and could be moved to an LCO file),
> > the second line can be used to switch foldmarks on or off (and could be
> > set by the exporter). Haven't tried this though.
> 
> Yeah, I guess it's true.  Still, since foldmarks depends on which
> envelopes you have at hand it might make sense to have it accept a
> string.  In lisp-terms a string is still t.  On the other hand the
> current approach is consistent with your approach above so that's a
> merit.

The more I think about it the more I agree that you should be able to
set any value of foldmarks. The only problem I see is that for other
boolean options one can use `t' whereas for foldmarks one would need to
use `true' (because `t' is a valid configuration value for foldmarks).
But as long as that's documented I see no problem. I will post a patch,
once Alan applies my previous patches.

Cheers,
Viktor