Timeline for Best practice for structuring a long thesis with \input
Current License: CC BY-SA 4.0
Post Revisions
12 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 4 hours ago | comment | added | Jeffrey J Weimer |
@Teepeemm Yes. In retrospect, I agree. Commands within the main \input file that reference sibling files will have to be handled as well. I've offered an answer that should circumvent the problem.
|
|
| 4 hours ago | answer | added | Jeffrey J Weimer | timeline score: 2 | |
| 8 hours ago | comment | added | Teepeemm |
@JeffreyJWeimer That may depend on other details. If the entirety of the chapter is contained in the toc.tex file, then yes, numbers should work fine. But if toc.tex then \inputs several other files (one per section?), those commands will also need to have the folder names.
|
|
| 13 hours ago | comment | added | Jeffrey J Weimer |
@Teepeemm With file names, yes. With folder names, a distinct advantage remains to use numbering schemes. One intuitively recognizes that \input{folder03/toc.tex} is to be listed before (above) \input{folder04/toc.tex}. If an author should decide to swap the order of these two chapters, renumbering the folders at the OS level is all that is required. No editorial changes are required in the top level LaTeX file.
|
|
| 14 hours ago | history | became hot network question | |||
| 15 hours ago | comment | added | Teepeemm |
It's not clear if this is your actual naming scheme, but try to avoid numbering your filenames. If you decide to swap introductionChap.tex with preliminariesChap.tex, that's not bad. If you decide to swap file1.a with file2.b, your main file will forever have things out of order.
|
|
| 16 hours ago | answer | added | MS-SPO | timeline score: 6 | |
| 18 hours ago | comment | added | taiwan12 | I think your structure is right; there’s no problem with it at first glance. | |
| 19 hours ago | comment | added | MS-SPO | As an alternative approach you can apply the Refactoring approach to your (main) document: 1) Just start. 2) Review and spot parts, which you now can outsource (via include). 3) Check via compile(s). 4) Repeat. // This way your structure evolves as needed over time. You can start with a predefined structure, but you don't need to: it will kind of "come up by itself", with you as the driving force. // Here I outlined the process a bit more tex.stackexchange.com/a/725090/245790 , though it will look a bit different when splitting documents continuously. | |
| 19 hours ago | comment | added | MS-SPO | This structure looks fine to me, provided it compiles this way: you didn't explicitly show your directory structure. // I'd like to draw your attention to package `subfiles', which allows you to compile any included file separately, e.g. for checking purposes ... if you can live with an "incorrect" numbering. Find an example here: tex.stackexchange.com/a/688740/245790 , and the package here: ctan.org/pkg/subfiles . | |
| 22 hours ago | comment | added | taiwan12 | This is not a MWE | |
| 22 hours ago | history | asked | palloc | CC BY-SA 4.0 |