LaTeX exporter

LaTeX exporter

[Fabrice Popineau]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 356 bytes --]

Hi,

The org-latex-classes variable handles a couple of parameters like
DEFAULT-PACKAGES, PACKAGES and EXTRA.

I thing that this variable could also benefit from an EXTRA_OPTIONS
parameter.
This could allow to have a default set of options for the curent class, but
to locally
add a couple of options you may not always want.

What do you think ?

Fabrice

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 496 bytes --]

Re: LaTeX exporter

[Nicolas Goaziou]

Hello,

Fabrice Popineau <fabrice.popineau@gmail.com> writes:

> The org-latex-classes variable handles a couple of parameters like
> DEFAULT-PACKAGES, PACKAGES and EXTRA.
>
> I thing that this variable could also benefit from an EXTRA_OPTIONS
> parameter.
> This could allow to have a default set of options for the curent class, but
> to locally
> add a couple of options you may not always want.
>
> What do you think ?

The OPTIONS keyword hasn't much to do with latex classes. It is handled
at a very different level (i.e., "ox.el"). IMO, it would be confusing to
mix them.

I think you want a couple of dedicated SETUPFILE keywords.


Regards,

-- 
Nicolas Goaziou

Re: LaTeX exporter

[Fabrice Popineau]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1203 bytes --]

Hi,

Maybe I wasn't clear enough.
I was thinking about an option specific of the latex exporter to expand the
document class options :

\documentclass[default_option_1, default_option_2, EXTRA_OPTIONS]{myclass}

default_option_i being taken from the org-latex-classes entry for the
current class.

Actually, LATEX_CLASS_OPTIONS overrides the whole set of options, so maybe
my suggestion is superfluous.

Regards,

2014-10-06 21:38 GMT+02:00 Nicolas Goaziou <mail@nicolasgoaziou.fr>:

> Hello,
>
> Fabrice Popineau <fabrice.popineau@gmail.com> writes:
>
> > The org-latex-classes variable handles a couple of parameters like
> > DEFAULT-PACKAGES, PACKAGES and EXTRA.
> >
> > I thing that this variable could also benefit from an EXTRA_OPTIONS
> > parameter.
> > This could allow to have a default set of options for the curent class,
> but
> > to locally
> > add a couple of options you may not always want.
> >
> > What do you think ?
>
> The OPTIONS keyword hasn't much to do with latex classes. It is handled
> at a very different level (i.e., "ox.el"). IMO, it would be confusing to
> mix them.
>
> I think you want a couple of dedicated SETUPFILE keywords.
>
>
> Regards,
>
> --
> Nicolas Goaziou
>

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 1903 bytes --]

Re: LaTeX exporter

[Rasmus]

Fabrice Popineau <fabrice.popineau@gmail.com> writes:

> Maybe I wasn't clear enough.
> I was thinking about an option specific of the latex exporter to expand the
> document class options :
>
> \documentclass[default_option_1, default_option_2, EXTRA_OPTIONS]{myclass}
>
> default_option_i being taken from the org-latex-classes entry for the
> current class.

The "correct way" is probably a derived class.  But probably it's too
much hassle.

> Actually, LATEX_CLASS_OPTIONS overrides the whole set of options, so maybe
> my suggestion is superfluous.

You could get this behavior using `org-export-before-parsing-hook':
  Look for document LaTeX class then you know default options.
  Replace MY_EXTRA_DOCUMENT_CLASS_OPTIONS with LATEX_CLASS_OPTIONS
  with  defaults and the buffer options as the value.

Or maybe with org-export-before-parsing-hook and
org-export-filter-options-functions.
  Save MY_EXTRA_DOCUMENT_CLASS_OPTIONS as a local variable and extend
  LATEX_CLASS_OPTIONS as needed.

Probably the former is easier.

Hope it helps,
Rasmus

-- 
When in doubt, do it!