From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Rasmus <rasmus@gmx.us>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Override the default class name with a new one.
Date: Fri, 14 Jun 2013 11:13:55 +0200
Message-ID: <87d2rp8370.fsf@pank.home>
References: <87hah2wn8y.fsf@news.tumashu-localhost.org>
	<8761xhftwi.fsf@news.tumashu-localhost.org>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Return-path: <emacs-orgmode-bounces+geo-emacs-orgmode=m.gmane.org@gnu.org>
Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:33660)
	by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71)
	(envelope-from <rasmus@gmx.us>) id 1UnQ5A-0000AS-CG
	for emacs-orgmode@gnu.org; Fri, 14 Jun 2013 05:14:11 -0400
Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71)
	(envelope-from <rasmus@gmx.us>) id 1UnQ57-0005vd-D2
	for emacs-orgmode@gnu.org; Fri, 14 Jun 2013 05:14:08 -0400
Received: from mout.gmx.net ([212.227.17.20]:59068)
	by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71)
	(envelope-from <rasmus@gmx.us>) id 1UnQ57-0005u1-4l
	for emacs-orgmode@gnu.org; Fri, 14 Jun 2013 05:14:05 -0400
In-Reply-To: <8761xhftwi.fsf@news.tumashu-localhost.org> (Feng Shu's message
	of "Fri, 14 Jun 2013 07:55:09 +0800")
List-Id: "General discussions about Org-mode." <emacs-orgmode.gnu.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/options/emacs-orgmode>,
	<mailto:emacs-orgmode-request@gnu.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/emacs-orgmode>
List-Post: <mailto:emacs-orgmode@gnu.org>
List-Help: <mailto:emacs-orgmode-request@gnu.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/emacs-orgmode>,
	<mailto:emacs-orgmode-request@gnu.org?subject=subscribe>
Errors-To: emacs-orgmode-bounces+geo-emacs-orgmode=m.gmane.org@gnu.org
Sender: emacs-orgmode-bounces+geo-emacs-orgmode=m.gmane.org@gnu.org
To: tumashu@gmail.com
Cc: emacs-orgmode@gnu.org

Feng Shu <tumashu@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.

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.

=E2=80=93Rasmus

--=20
A clever person solves a problem. A wise person avoids it