I have folding, recognizing fakepart, -chapter, -section etcetera working. However, I need to introduce a \part to make % Fakepart work. Ie. if I have a structure containing only \section and below, and add a % Fakepart the latter is not recognized. If I add a \part somewhere in the document, it enables all % Fakepart as well.
In other words, fakepart does _not_ work with the following structure:
% Fakepart: Bla
blabla
\section{Bla}
blabla
\section{Bla}
% Fakepart: Bla
\section{Bla bla}
...
\subsection{Bla bla}
% Fakepart: Bla
\section
...
But all % Fakepart _does_ work with the following:
\part{Bla}
blabla
\section{Bla}
blabla
\section{Bla}
% Fakepart: Bla
\section{Bla bla}
...
\subsection{Bla bla}
% Fakepart: Bla
\section
...
The only change being the first % Fakepart having been changed to a proper \part. Indeed, the change is instantaneous. Removing \part disables all % Fakepart; adding it enables them.
Is this a bug, a feature, and/or something I can adjust with some setting or another?
I would like to be able to use % Fakepart without introducing \part in the document.
The idea was that adding fake parts when there were no real parts seemed to make little sense. At least it did to me when I implemented it. It is not difficult to change this, though, and when I think about it now I don't quite see that it could make any harm to allow this. If I don't work with parts I don't use them, but there is no point in blocking the use of % Fakepart regardless.
Just to give some context to the scenario where % Fakepart’s without \part’s made sense to me. I’m currently working in a journal’s template. There are three clear “parts”, where the first is a kind of preamble (title, keywords, abstract, etcetera), the second is the main content, and the third is a kind of epilogue, with acknowledgments, references, author bio, etcetera. There are no true \part‘s in the template’s structure, but I found it handy to add % Fakepart’s to divide the aforementioned three ... er parts, to structure it whilst writing, generally focusing on the main content.
Yes, that does sound quite useful. I've pushed a fix for this now.
Much appreciated! Working as expected. 👍
Great, happy to hear it!