## LATEX-L@LISTSERV.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE

#### View:

 Message: [ First | Previous | Next | Last ] By Topic: [ First | Previous | Next | Last ] By Author: [ First | Previous | Next | Last ] Font: Proportional Font

Subject:

From:

Date:

Fri, 29 Oct 1999 20:03:52 +0200

Content-Type:

text/plain

Parts/Attachments:

 text/plain (54 lines)
 Frank Mittelbach wrote: > \DeclareDocumentCommand \chapter { s o s o s m o } > { > \UseInstance{heading}{chapter} > {#1} {#3} {#5} {#6} {#2} {#4} {#7} > } > > this may look like madness :-) but there is some logic behind it: > > * means no number > [] the text for the toc > * don't put text in toc > [] text for runhead > * don't put text in runhead > {} main heading text > [] motto if any What I would really like to see at the user level is the possibility of relative sectioning commands. One requirement should be that one can mix absolute and relative sectioning in a natural way. To explain what I mean by this, suppose that the optional argument of \section and friends was not not already used for the TOC title. Now I have a document with structure   \section{AAA}   \section{BBB}   \subsection{CCC}   \section{DDD} and I decide that BBB with all of its sub- and lower level sections should really be a subsection to AAA. I'd like to be able to write   \section{AAA} \label{aaa}   \section[aaa]{BBB}   \subsection{CCC}   \section{DDD} which makes BBB relative to AAA, i.e. a subsection, and CCC consequently a subsubsection, while DDD remains at the section level. I guess the functionality should be implementable via an .aux file mechanism (I am sure the experts will know if there are any pitfalls), but anything like this will also further overload the argument structure of sectioning commands. The only clean solution that I see is the use of keyval syntax, but it looks like this will seriously break existing end-user code, and also bypass all this nice new xparse stuff... Marcel