Hi,
On 24 September 2015 at 12:04, Eric S Fraga wrote:
> I have done the following:
> […]
thanks for all the great suggestions! I haven't had the opportunity to
try out all proposed solutions yet, but Eric's snippet looks like a
great way to tackle my initial problem.
Best,
Sebastian
On Wednesday, 23 Sep 2015 at 14:27, Ista Zahn wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 23, 2015 at 2:16 PM, Eric S Fraga wrote:
[...]
>> One solution, but not an ideal one, is to use file local variables to
>> define org-latex-classes (and any other variables) as appropriate for
>> the document. It's not ideal bec
Nicolas Goaziou writes:
> Hello,
>
> Rasmus writes:
>
>> The long-term solution to this is a new "bundled org" file format
>> containing dependencies, such as org files, init.el etc.
>>
>> https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/emacs-orgmode/2015-02/msg00765.html
>
> This was just an idea, not a
Hello,
Rasmus writes:
> The long-term solution to this is a new "bundled org" file format
> containing dependencies, such as org files, init.el etc.
>
> https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/emacs-orgmode/2015-02/msg00765.html
This was just an idea, not a long-term solution or a plan. Actually
Sebastian Boehm writes:
> My intention was not to start a debate on "article" vs. "scrartcl",
> but it would be great to see some more variety in the default document
> classes or maybe even a way to specify the desired document class as
> well as the desired sectioning style directly in an Org fi
Hi Eric,
Eric S Fraga writes:
> One solution, but not an ideal one, is to use file local variables to
> define org-latex-classes (and any other variables) as appropriate for
> the document. It's not ideal because unfortunately most of org's
> variables (as well as many of emacs's own) are "glob
On Wed, Sep 23, 2015 at 2:16 PM, Eric S Fraga wrote:
> On Wednesday, 23 Sep 2015 at 18:59, Sebastian Boehm wrote:
>> Hi Nicolas,
>>
>> On 21 September 2015 at 21:46, Nicolas Goaziou
>> wrote:
>>> But can't users needing a non-default class customize their
>>> own `org-latex-classes? Or is there
On Wednesday, 23 Sep 2015 at 18:59, Sebastian Boehm wrote:
> Hi Nicolas,
>
> On 21 September 2015 at 21:46, Nicolas Goaziou wrote:
>> But can't users needing a non-default class customize their
>> own `org-latex-classes? Or is there an entitling reason to offer it out
>> of the box?
>
> you are of
Aloha Sebastian,
Sebastian Boehm writes:
> Hi Nicolas,
>
> On 21 September 2015 at 21:46, Nicolas Goaziou wrote:
>> But can't users needing a non-default class customize their
>> own `org-latex-classes? Or is there an entitling reason to offer it out
>> of the box?
>
> you are of course right;
Hi Nicolas,
On 21 September 2015 at 21:46, Nicolas Goaziou wrote:
> But can't users needing a non-default class customize their
> own `org-latex-classes? Or is there an entitling reason to offer it out
> of the box?
you are of course right; users can always customise their own setup.
However, wh
Eric S Fraga writes:
>> Some people might hate the margin choices to the extend that they'd
>> need geometry to make KOMA-script bearable. Now we have two new
>> dependencies...
>
> yes. The real question is not the dependencies but what would we like
> new users to when they try exporting a do
On Tuesday, 22 Sep 2015 at 13:21, Rasmus wrote:
> Key word being 'arguably'.
indeed!
> Some people might hate the margin choices to the extend that they'd
> need geometry to make KOMA-script bearable. Now we have two new
> dependencies...
yes. The real question is not the dependencies but what
On Tue, Sep 22, 2015 at 2:20 AM, Eric S Fraga wrote:
> On Monday, 21 Sep 2015 at 21:46, Nicolas Goaziou wrote:
> Only that the koma-script classes are arguably better defaults than the
> actual defaults... Personally, I cannot see any reason to use the
> standard article/report/letter classes!
Eric S Fraga writes:
>> Thank you. But can't users needing a non-default class customize their
>> own `org-latex-classes? Or is there an entitling reason to offer it out
>> of the box?
>
> Only that the koma-script classes are arguably better defaults than the
> actual defaults... Personally, I
On Monday, 21 Sep 2015 at 21:46, Nicolas Goaziou wrote:
[...]
> Thank you. But can't users needing a non-default class customize their
> own `org-latex-classes? Or is there an entitling reason to offer it out
> of the box?
Only that the koma-script classes are arguably better defaults than the
a
On Mon, Sep 21, 2015 at 11:45:08PM +0200, Rasmus wrote:
> Nicolas Goaziou writes:
>
> > Sebastian Boehm writes:
> >
> >> I would like to propose adding the KOMA-script scrartcl class to the
> >> list of supported ox-latex classes. scrartcl is one of the most
> >> popular "article" alternatives o
Nicolas Goaziou writes:
> Hello,
>
> Sebastian Boehm writes:
>
>> I would like to propose adding the KOMA-script scrartcl class to the
>> list of supported ox-latex classes. scrartcl is one of the most
>> popular "article" alternatives out there and it would be great to be
>> able to pass org fi
Hello,
Sebastian Boehm writes:
> I would like to propose adding the KOMA-script scrartcl class to the
> list of supported ox-latex classes. scrartcl is one of the most
> popular "article" alternatives out there and it would be great to be
> able to pass org files using scrartcl to other Org mode
Hi Org mode devs,
I would like to propose adding the KOMA-script scrartcl class to the
list of supported ox-latex classes. scrartcl is one of the most
popular "article" alternatives out there and it would be great to be
able to pass org files using scrartcl to other Org mode users without
having t
19 matches
Mail list logo
