Rasmus <ras...@gmx.us> writes: > Feng Shu <tuma...@gmail.com> writes: > >> #+LATEX_CLASS: article >> #+LATEX_CLASS_NAME: ctexart > > I'm not sure this is the right approach. . . I can certainly see the > value of generating classes on the fly, though. But somehow the > proposed syntax just seems to counter-intuitive. I'm not sure how to > overcome this, but perhaps it would be better to allow for an argument > to LATEX_CLASS, e.g. > > (*) #+LATEX_CLASS: myclass :class-name ctexart. >
That was what popped into my head as well - I didn't much care for the OP's approach. Now that I've thought about it some more, I'm not sure I like this one much better... > as e.g. the INCLUDE command. Of course (*) is somewhat different from > how stuff like this is usually handled, cf. e.g. LATEX_CLASS_OPTIONS. > ...but this sounds a bit more promising: maybe LATEX_CLASS_OPTIONS can be eliminated in favor of LATEX_CLASS with arguments: #+LATEX_CLASS: key :class-name foo :class-options a4paper,12pt where "key" selects from org-latex-classes (and is optional, default "article"), class-name is optional and defaults to key (or article if key is absent). -- Nick
