On 11/08/11 11:33, Edward K. Ream wrote:
On Tue, Nov 8, 2011 at 9:49 AM, mdb<mdbol...@gmail.com> wrote:
Your comments please.
I vote for using rst2pdf
Thanks for your vote. I'm leaning the same way. I think using
standard tools wherever possible is a big improvements over hacks like
leo_pdf.py.
This looks similar to using latexpdf
and the option to convert rst to latex as
another step remains possible
(to leverage latex's abilities)
That option is always possible, regardless of whether leo_pdf.py exists or not.
I second this vote also. My toolchain previously include converting leo
trees to rst using @auto-rst (for some reason rst command never worked
for me properly on my version of Leo), then use rs2pdf to convert the
file properly. Now I'm using rst2latex and pdflatex to get more control
on the pdf output. Leo is a great tool for the creation of your
personalized toolchain for working with data and having a lot of
developments in pythons liks rst2pdt helps with this greatly.
Cheers,
Offray
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"leo-editor" group.
To post to this group, send email to leo-editor@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
leo-editor+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/leo-editor?hl=en.
