emacs-orgmode
[Top][All Lists]
Advanced

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [O] Questions on LaTeX Exporter


From: Thomas S . Dye
Subject: Re: [O] Questions on LaTeX Exporter
Date: Sun, 6 Mar 2011 12:39:55 -1000

Aloha Rasmus,

On Mar 6, 2011, at 3:21 AM, Rasmus wrote:

Hi,

This would make you an "early adopter."

Well, to be fair the latex exporter have been there for years and I have used it for non-important documents for years. But papers utilizing more
features have proven difficult, so far.


I didn't mean to imply any criticism of the Org-mode LaTeX exporter. It was designed to export notes and does a fantastic job of that. The fact that we are wanting to use it for other kinds of more complex documents is testament to how good it is.

Of course, the paper doesn't have abbreviations that end with dots ...
The problem might be traced back to my less-than-stylish prose :)


No problem. My conference paper is not very complex, but I am very happy with the LaTeX code produced by Org-mode. The paper itself was easy to write in Org-mode and I am a big fan of having everything in one file. I'd like to write larger, more complex documents in Org- mode, too.

Yes, and the overhead does get in the way, at least for my writing
projects.

With folding, AUCTeX buffers become quite readable. But linking, plannig
and TODOs are nice. Previously, I have had a notes.org and several
tex files.


On the other hand, I think it is the only way currently to get from
Org-mode to perfect LaTeX.

... And in that case AUCTeX provide a nicer environment in my
oppinion. Org would be nice for text heavy documents, though.


Yes, AucTeX sets a high standard.

Fixme in Org
If you figure this one out, please share
I haven't. I think one of either of the following would be nice.

 1) Have them fold like I do in AUCTeX (i.e. \fxnote{·} is replaced by
    [fix] in the buffer)
2) Use special footnotes. This could be an org-centric system, without
    the need of fixme.sty. This would require that Org could tell the
    difference between fn:x and fix:x, and further, one would need to
    be able to specify which set(s) of footnotes were to be exported.

*More questions, sorry*

Org populates every section with a label. I would
like to \ref or \vref these. I could predict \label's, but this a rather
fragile solution. When I use "Org-links" I get a text link suitable
for e.g. html. I want to use \ref to get a number. One solution is

,----
|   * section
|   #+latex: \label{sec:sec}
`----

But there /must/ be a better way to this, eh?

Good point. It would be great to leverage Org-links to resolve cross references to document sections.


And other question, which should also be simple, but which I have not been
able to figure out.

I have internalized word count in my org file using babel:

,----
| ** Getting Word Count
| #+srcname: wordcount
| #+BEGIN_SRC sh
|   #!/bin/bash
| alias calc='Rscript -e "cat( file=stdout(), eval( parse( text=paste( commandArgs(TRUE), collapse=\"\"))),\"\n\")"'
|   calc `texcount -inc -sum -relaxed -1 -q -total assignment.tex`/400
| #+END_SRC
|
| #+results: wordcount
| : 0.6425
`----

First, this should be evaluated post-export, but this is a trival issue
as I can export the document in question twice. However, I want to
include the result in a \thanks{·}-node in the #+TITLE.

I have tried varioues methods, but so far without luck. To given an
example, I want to replace X by the results of my Babel-snip in the
following:

,----
| #+TITLE: \Large Education in Labor Markets With Asymmetric Information\thanks{Approximatly X words using \TeX Count}
`----


You are right. Using an inline code block, e.g. src_sh[:noweb yes] {<<wordcount>>}, doesn't seem to work in #+TITLE. I'm not sure how it might be made to work there.

All the best,
Tom

Thanks in advance,
Rasmus




reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]