[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [O] [patch] ox-koma-letter
From: |
Michael Strey |
Subject: |
Re: [O] [patch] ox-koma-letter |
Date: |
Wed, 27 Feb 2013 11:51:02 +0100 |
User-agent: |
Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) |
On Tue, Feb 26, 2013 at 10:14:28PM +0100, Rasmus wrote:
[...]
> > Wouldn't it be better to use Markus Kohm's concept of letter class
> > options to set all the static stuff?
>
> Potentially. What do you mean by "letter class options"? Are you
> referring to customized LCO files or do you refer to e.g. customized
> org-latex-classes?
I mean customized LCO files. For my former company I had made a letter
class for business letters based on scrlttr2.cls with two LCO files.
the first LCO file *company.lco* contained the general information about
the company (address, bank account, etc.). A second LCO file
*my_name.lco* contained the personal information of (e-mail address,
name, phone extension). With *my_name.lco* calling *company.lco* the
document class command for my letter finally was:
\documentclass[my_name]{our_company_letter_class}
With suitable setting of org-latex-classes not even the LCO feature
would be needed in ox-koma-letter. However I would leave it there for
more flexibility.
[...]
> Even when using a dedicated LCO files and or org-latex-classes it
> might be appropriate to overwrite variables.
Yes, I can imagine such cases. My problem with the current
implementation was, that for instance, the phone number was preset in
org-latex-classes. That urged me to customize this variable although
everything was already well defined in *my_name.lco*. So, please take
care to preset such variables with nil, where nil shall have the meaning
of 'ignore this variable'.
> In any case I don't have a strong opinion on this issue and your
> approach also makes sense.
Maybe we should write a user guide *before* further implementation steps.
> >> 2. Added AFTER_CLOSING and AFTER_LETTER keywords for arbitrary code
> >> after \closing{.} and \end{letter}, respectively.
> >> [...]
> >> b. Would it be better to have a dedicated, say, PS and ENCL rather
> >> than the generic AFTER_CLOSING?
> > I would opt for dedicated variables.
>
> Fine by be.. At the very least these should come in the order that
> they are specified in the document, I guess. E.g. I should be able to
> place ENCL before PS in the output, if I so desire.
Mmmh ... never thought about this aspect. I simply dictated the order
of CC, ENCL and PS in my implementation. Thus your current
AFTER_CLOSING is the best solution, if you want to provide full
flexibility.
> For arbitrary code I find AFTER_CLOSING and AFTER_LETTER nice.
> E.g. for pdfpages inclusions.
Agreed.
Best regards
--
Michael Strey
www.strey.biz