Re: [O] Question to the list about csquotes
Am 11.07.2011 15:14, schrieb Bastien: Hi Nick, Thomas and Frederik, I've just sent a patch for this question: it sticks to the solution suggested in this thread, with minor variations. Thanks all for working out this simple solution! It defines a new `org-export-latex-quotes' variable -- please see the docstring. The default behavior reproduces the current behavior, so no one should be hurt in the process. Thanks for any feedback, Do I have to apply the patch to the development version or is 7.6 just fine? Thanks Regards -- Frederik
Re: [O] Question to the list about csquotes
Frederik freak.f...@gmail.com writes: Do I have to apply the patch to the development version or is 7.6 just fine? Get the latest version from git, it has been applied this morning. -- Bastien
Re: [O] Question to the list about csquotes
Hi Nick, Thomas and Frederik, I've just sent a patch for this question: it sticks to the solution suggested in this thread, with minor variations. Thanks all for working out this simple solution! It defines a new `org-export-latex-quotes' variable -- please see the docstring. The default behavior reproduces the current behavior, so no one should be hurt in the process. Thanks for any feedback, -- Bastien
[O] Question to the list about csquotes
There's been a recent discussion about using csquotes in the latex exporter[fn:1] and Tom Dye came up with a good idea of how to implement it. We have been discussing it off list but there is a point that might benefit from more general airing, so I offered to solicit opinions on the list. The question is about the following bit of code in org-export-latex-quotation-marks: , | ... | (let* ((lang (plist-get org-export-latex-options-plist :language)) |(quote-rpl (if (equal lang fr) | '((\\(\\s-\\)\ «~) | (\\(\\S-\\)\ ~») | (\\(\\s-\\)' `)) | '((\\(\\s-\\|[[(]\\)\ ``) | (\\(\\S-\\)\ '') | (\\(\\s-\\|(\\)' `) | ... ` The question is what to do about the lang = fr case (which I think we all agree is a hack): o leave it alone and implement the csquotes mechanism on top of it? o get rid of it and depend on the general csquotes mechanism to replace it? The first solution perpetuates the hack but leaves existing org files that use it unaffected. The second cleans up the hack but at the cost of some backward inompatibility: files that use the hack will not get guillemets unless some (one-time) customizations are done: the LaTeX preamble has to be expanded to pull in the appropriate packages (babel and csquotes) and a couple of string variables have to be set to the right values. So we turn to the collective wisdom of the list: how important is backward compatibility in this case (i.e. are there lots of files out there that use the hack)? And if it is important, how would you weigh the inconvenience of the required customizations against the code cleanup? Presumably, french speakers have been the heaviest users of this, so we'd like to hear from you - but opinions are welcome. Thanks, Nick Footnotes: [fn:1] http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.emacs.orgmode/43689
