Well, this turned out to be a completely different question than the one I started writing!

Originally I was wondering how to make a version of \textit (and a parallel version of \textsl) that automatically tracks the nesting level and toggles on/off based on the oddness/evenness of the nesting depth. \emph of course does this, but it isn't guaranteed to render in italics, and there doesn't seem to be a corresponding slant version of \emph for slant.

And then I discovered the slemph package, which provides exactly what I want. Sometimes, while formulating a question, one thinks of better search terms/phrases and is better able to find the answer!

Anyway, I figured that a picture would be the best way to ask my question (originally), so I started out by making this drawing, which describes fictional macros \RM, \IT, \SL, and \BF which behave well together like \textit, \textsl, \textbf, etc.:

And then I made this, which demonstrates the inner workings of the decision-making that I was hoping to hack together:

But again, it turns out that \textitswitch and \textslswitch of package slemph already do exactly what I want, and I basically wasted my time making the diagrams. But I did learn some new things. :-)

So, as long as I have these diagrams (and the accompanying LaTeX source), I'm wondering if there is a preferred way to submit things to package authors for their consideration. Is it acceptable to just e-mail them? Or is there a more formal gateway through CTAN? This particular package hasn't been updated in 13 years.

I would definitely find a diagram like this helpful in the documentation for the package. I actually came across the package halfway through my investigation, but brushed it aside carelessly because I didn't realize from the description that it actually did what I wanted! A picture like this would have led me to see it immediately.

closed as not a real question by lockstep, percusse, Joseph Wright Mar 4 '12 at 17:46

It's difficult to tell what is being asked here. This question is ambiguous, vague, incomplete, overly broad, or rhetorical and cannot be reasonably answered in its current form. For help clarifying this question so that it can be reopened, visit the help center. If this question can be reworded to fit the rules in the help center, please edit the question.

Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.