Sender: |
|
Subject: |
|
From: |
|
Date: |
Sun, 31 Oct 1999 12:25:03 +0100 |
In-Reply-To: |
|
Reply-To: |
|
Parts/Attachments: |
|
|
Marcel Oliver writes:
> What I would really like to see at the user level is the possibility
> of relative sectioning commands.
having read this far i thought that you meant something like this:
\begin{head}{Main heading}
text text text
\begin{head}{Sub heading}
text text
\end{head}
\begin{head}{Another sub heading}
text text
\end{head}
\end{head}
etc.
something like this would be easy to provide, eg you simply would do something
like this:
\newcounter{headlevel}
\DeclareDocumentEnvironment{head} { s o m } % or whatever you parse here
{ \stepcounter{headlevel}
\UseInstance{heading}{\Alph{headlevel}-head} ...
}
{ \addtocounter{headlevel}{-1} }
which means that for each level one would need to define an instance with the
name A-head, B-head, ...
however, this would not solve:
> One requirement should be that one
> can mix absolute and relative sectioning in a natural way. To explain
but to be honnest i don't think that a concept of mixing absolute names with
relative names via a label/ref mechanism is really helpful.
> \section{AAA} \label{aaa}
> \section[aaa]{BBB}
> \subsection{CCC}
> \section{DDD}
I agree that it is a bit of a pain to change a heading tree in a LaTeX
document at the moment but something like the above seems to mak a document
completely uncomprehensible (if used on a larger scale). So in my opinion it
is better to either accept that changing the names is necessary if one
changes the structure or to use a real relative naming scheme (as outlined
above) in the first place. --- or perhaps i'm just getting too old for
revolutionary changes?
anybody else having some views on this?
frank
|
|
|