[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [O] latex checkboxes
From: |
Nicolas Goaziou |
Subject: |
Re: [O] latex checkboxes |
Date: |
Fri, 17 Jun 2011 15:18:46 +0200 |
Hello,
Nick Dokos <address@hidden> writes:
> Yes, you can indeed - except for the [-] which is hardcoded. Try the
> following:
>
> #LATEX_HEADER: \setbox0=\hbox{\large$\square$}
>
> #+BIND: org-export-latex-list-parameters (:cbon
> "[{\\parbox[][][c]{\\wd0}{\\large$\\boxtimes$}}]" :cboff
> "[{\\parbox[][][c]{\\wd0}{\\large$\\square$}}]")
>
> * DONE Organize party [3/4]
> - [ ] call people
> - [X] order food
> - [-] think about what music to play
> - [X] talk to the neighbors
>
> So the question is: why is the [-] hardcoded?
Historical reasons, I guess.
I've now pushed a patch introducing the new property `:cbtrans' for
those check-boxes. Sadly, it will only work with exporters making use of
list parsing, that is only the LaTeX exporter so far.
Btw, is there any consensus on better default values for :cbon, :cboff
and :cbtrans? Configurability isn't an excuse for ugly standards.
Regards,
--
Nicolas Goaziou
- [O] latex checkboxes, Skip Collins, 2011/06/16
- Re: [O] latex checkboxes, Nick Dokos, 2011/06/16
- Re: [O] latex checkboxes, Thomas S. Dye, 2011/06/16
- Re: [O] latex checkboxes, Nick Dokos, 2011/06/16
- Re: [O] latex checkboxes,
Nicolas Goaziou <=
- Re: [O] latex checkboxes, Nick Dokos, 2011/06/17
- Re: [O] latex checkboxes, Nicolas Goaziou, 2011/06/17
- Re: [O] latex checkboxes, Nick Dokos, 2011/06/17
- Re: [O] latex checkboxes, Skip Collins, 2011/06/17
- Re: [O] latex checkboxes, Nick Dokos, 2011/06/17
- Re: [O] latex checkboxes, Thomas S. Dye, 2011/06/17