5

In the past I worked with the ltxtable package, which unfortunately require the table in a separate file.

Now I found the ltablex package which claims to be a rewrite (or it rewrites) the tabularx package.

I wonder which of both is better? Both are more than 15 years old (both from 1995). Any recommendations?

Mico
  • 506,678
Matthias Pospiech
  • 11,681
  • ltablex seem to introduce some caption related bugs, as described in: http://tex.stackexchange.com/questions/7977/ltablex-caption-error-or-bug – Matthias Pospiech Nov 15 '11 at 14:34
  • 2
    There is also the tabu package which seems to be very feature-rich. It is very new and supports a lot of things. – Martin Scharrer Nov 15 '11 at 14:38
  • 1
    By careful with "what is better" questions here. Subjective threads / answers are not wanted on a Q&A site. You might want to rephrase it a little. – Martin Scharrer Nov 15 '11 at 14:39
  • Just as a note, if you really want to keep using ltxtable you could use the filecontents package to keep everything in the same file. – Roelof Spijker Nov 15 '11 at 14:40
  • 1
    I agree with @wh1t3, but IMHO everything complex, like a large table, should be in a separate file anyway. – Martin Scharrer Nov 15 '11 at 14:42
  • @MartinScharrer: I know that asking for better is a bad defined question, but since I know only one of them I was looking for arguments for or against them. I know filecontents and use it. And tabu is on my radar, but I want at least have a 'standard' version to compare it to tabu. – Matthias Pospiech Nov 15 '11 at 16:16

1 Answers1

6

As mentioned in the comments:

ltablex seems to introduce some caption related bugs, as described here: ltablex + \caption[]{…} = error or bug?

On the other hand, if for some reason you must use ltxtable you could use the filecontents package to keep everything in the same file.

Other, newer, still maintained packages which have similar features are available on CTAN, like e.g. tabu.

Community
  • 1
Count Zero
  • 17,424