Thanks Nicolas and Scot for your feedback. I think the fill approach
will probably catch most issues.
Stephen
Ah, right. I did misunderstand. Yes, that seems like a good solution.
Scot
On Thu, Mar 10, 2011 at 10:00 PM, Nicolas wrote:
> Hello,
>
> Scot Becker writes:
>
> > Looks good, but I can't get it to work. To test it, can I just
> > evaluate the two sexp's in the block you gave inside a scratc
Hello,
Scot Becker writes:
> Looks good, but I can't get it to work. To test it, can I just
> evaluate the two sexp's in the block you gave inside a scratch buffer,
> then switch to my trial org file and export to LaTeX?
Yes, but I guess you misunderstand the goal of the snippet. It will not
"f
Looks good, but I can't get it to work. To test it, can I just evaluate the
two sexp's in the block you gave inside a scratch buffer, then switch to my
trial org file and export to LaTeX? Trying the OP's sample file gives the
same results before and after I evaluate this new bit of code, but I su
Hello,
Scot Becker writes:
> That sounds like it means that any documents you might want to export to
> LaTeX (and format with hard line breaks) should always have non-breaking
> spaces after the periods---or you should keep a manual eye on your paragraph
> formatting to make sure no numbers com
That sounds like it means that any documents you might want to export to
LaTeX (and format with hard line breaks) should always have non-breaking
spaces after the periods---or you should keep a manual eye on your paragraph
formatting to make sure no numbers come first on the line.
Although I reall
Hello,
Stephen Eglen writes:
> With the following minimal org buffer:
>
> Simple test
>
> here here here here here here here here here here here here here here
> 2010. here here here here here here here here here here here here
> here here here here here here here here here here here here here
