Re: [PATCH] ox-latex.el: Unify in one single list Babel and Polyglossia languages alists

[Ihor Radchenko <yantar92@gmail.com>]

Juan Manuel Macías <maciaschain@posteo.net> writes:

>> For Max's comment, using plist/alist would make things more clear
>> code-wise for future developers. I always find it annoying when I need
>> to go back and forth checking which element should be second or third or
>> forth in the list. Especially if the variable is used all around the
>> codebase. Though this particular case is not such -
>> `org-latex-language-alist' is used just in few places.
>
> I agree with Maxim and with you that an anonymous list is hardly usable
> for future features. For this new list I followed the style of the
> previous ones and I admit that I was quite conservative. The problem,
> imho, is that with the current org implementation I find it difficult to
> add new features. For example, Babel now has two ways of loading
> languages: the old one, through ldf files, which is the one that Org
> implements and that produces the traditional babel syntax; and the new
> system through ini files, which also incorporates a new syntax with many
> options and variants. New languages have been defined by ini files, but
> cannot be loaded by the old syntax. That is the cause of the asterisks
> in my list: when a language has an asterisk it means that it is only
> served in babel through an ini file and, therefore, the traditional
> syntax cannot be used, so it is not implemented for use in babel. And
> furthermore, the new babel syntax and ini files can only be used with
> the Unicode TeX engines: XeTeX and LuaTeX. This all looks like a puzzle
> (I'm getting dizzy just rereading it :-)), and I don't see a clean and
> sensible way to translate it to Org settings.

Do you refer to the paragraph below when saying that Org implementation
makes it hard to add new features? The rest of the above paragraph
implies that the difficulty is on LaTeX side, not on Org side.

In any case, your existing patch is an already an improvement. I do not
deem it as requirement to apply the patch.

> I also think that the current Org settings for loading languages with
> Polyglossia or Babel is unhelpful and unclear. Also, it depends on
> putting explicit LaTeX code in the document. A code that, in the case of
> Polyglossia, is a fake LaTeX code, because something like this:
>
> \usepackage[french,AUTO]{polyglossia}
>
> is not really the Polyglossia syntax. And it can lead to confusion.

I hope that Timothy's work on more flexible and configurable template
generation can improve things.

> I think this should be reimplemented in the future using a more
> org-centric syntax, using keywords (somehow keeping the
> above for backwards compatibility). I don't know, maybe something like
> this, with a specific keyword for language LaTeX settings:
>
> #+latex_language: es variant:mx babel-ini:t other:en,de,el etc.
>
> In this case, I think it would make more sense to define a more robust
> list, an alist or a plist (as Maxim suggested), leaving the door open to
> a fresh reimplementation of langs in latex export. I can get to work as
> soon as I have some time and finish with other commitments, that will
> keep me busy practically all summer.
>
> WDYT?

This sounds reasonable. Implementing via :options-alist export property
will conform more to the overall design (see the docstring of
org-export-options-alist - it enables a lot of flexibility in terms of
customization, including the option syntax similar to what you proposed).

Best,
Ihor