Skip Collins <skip.coll...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 16, 2011 at 6:52 PM, Nick Dokos <nicholas.do...@hp.com> wrote:
> > I like it! Well, almost all of it: I'd vote for \large, rather than \LARGE,
> > but otherwise it looks good to me.
>
> Can we compromise on \Large ? :-)
>
As Tom Dye pointed out, you can customize :cbon and :cboff, so
no compromise necessary: you say tomAHto and I say tomEIto...
The only fly in the ointment is the hardcoding of [-] but that will be
fixed a few seconds after Nicolas Goaziou gets wind of this thread :-)
> > ,----
> > | \item [{\parbox[][][c]{\wd0}{\LARGE$\square$}}] a
> > `----
>
> I tried the optional preamble for \item in a very naive fashion. LaTeX
> threw an error. Maybe I did it wrong. Or maybe the preamble is
> fragile. Regardless, there is probably a simple solution. Even for
> enumerated lists, it makes sense to place the checkbox with the list
> number rather than with the item text.
>
I don't know what you mean by "preamble" here. I get no errors from
the above in any case: just even, nice-looking squares and no bullets.
I have not tried enumerated lists.
> Regarding the extra square brackets after \parbox, I was just using
> the documentation I found at
> http://www.tug.org/tutorials/latex2e/$5cparbox.html :
>
Thanks for the reference. I was going by Lamport's book which does not
mention them. I guess things have changed since 1994 - who'd have thunk
it?
Nick
