Nick Dokos <ndo...@gmail.com> writes: > 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
May be we should add this feature too: #+LaTEX_CLASS: key :class-name foo :class-options+ twoside #+LaTEX_CLASS: key :class-name foo :class-options- twoside > > 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). --
