Karl Voit <devn...@karl-voit.at> writes: > * Thomas S. Dye <t...@tsdye.com> wrote: >> >> AFAICT, the new exporter preserves most of the interface of the old >> exporter, but smooths over some of the rough edges. It shouldn't >> represent a barrier to your contribution. In fact, it might be useful >> to write a template for both exporters, then document how they differ as >> a guide to using the new exporter. > > Good idea! > >> I took a brief look at the ACM web site and saw that there is more than >> one LaTeX template. Which one are you interested in for Org-mode? > > I took the "Option 1: LaTeX2e - Strict Adherence to SIGS style" > >> Do you have a repository for the project? > > Yea, that might be appropriate. So I set up a github repos: > > https://github.com/novoid/orgmode-ACM-template > Hi Karl,
Got it, thanks. IIUC, you'd like to configure Org-mode to export a LaTeX file that is functionally equivalent to sigproc-sp.tex. If this is the case, it might be best to change the name of orgmode.org to sigproc-sp.org or something similar. If the goal is to support both exporters, perhaps sigproc-sp-old.org and sigproc-sp-new.org? In my view, it is best to encapsulate as much of the Org-mode configuration as possible in an init.el file. That way, users of the Org-mode template can launch with emacs -Q etc. and not have to worry about their own customizations that might conflict with the configuration. An example is here: https://github.com/tsdye/LKFS.git. Perhaps two initialization files would be needed: init-new.el and init-old.el? > With the new exporter, I was not able to compile the Org-mode file > at all. Since the old exporter had troubles using this > "per-file-class" I do have a feeling that this might be the cause > for the error message with the new exporter too. I'll have a look at this and send you patches off list. > > Maybe someone more familiar with the (new) LaTeX exporter can send > me some patches ... All the best, Tom -- Thomas S. Dye http://www.tsdye.com
