Support several words for cross ref option in LaTeX #11909
Merged
Conversation
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
|
We have |
Instead of which part ? Now I see |
To insure format output, but it works without because it defaults to `FORMAT` which is already LaTeX
it already does the check and handles more cases to insure Blocks is passed to pandoc.Pandoc
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
fix #11903
As explained in #11903, inlines needs to be wrapped in Plain before being converted to latex as otherwise
pandoc.Pandoc({inlines})will automatically do it on each element. This leads to multiline output which is incorrect.My understanding is that
as_latex()would work only with Inlines, but for safety measure, I added aisInlineEl()check to wrap only in this case.We can remove if not necessary. Assigning @cscheid as crossref related, and @tarleb as this is Lua PR.