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.
CLASS and class-name are confusing, I think LATEX_CLASS should rename to LATEX_CLASS_FORMAT or LATEX_CLASS_TEMPLATE, but this will break compatibility. > > 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. > > –Rasmus --
