#6 No table of contents entries with scrjura and lualatex-dev 2021-05-27

[Markus Kohm]

On latex3/latex2 Keks-Dose reported a bug with scrartcl + scrjura and the current lualatex-dev:

\documentclass[pagesize, ngerman, fontsize=12pt, parskip=half, juratotoc=true,]{scrartcl}
\usepackage{fontspec}
\setmainfont{Linux Libertine O}
\setsansfont{Linux Biolinum O}
\usepackage{babel, scrjura, xspace, fewerfloatpages, geometry}
\geometry{bottom=4cm, right=4.5cm, top=3cm, left=4cm}

\title{dingens}
\begin{document}
\maketitle{}

\tableofcontents{}

\begin{contract}
\Clause{title=erstens}
\label{CLA:title=erstens}

Text und nochwas whatever.

\Clause{title=segundo}

Yes.

and no.

\end{contract}

\end{document}

does not produce any table of contents entries.

Due to Ulrike's comment there may be an issue with spaces before or after the option when using the raw option list.

[Markus Kohm]

This is strange, because if the options (or their values) are not recognised, they should be reported a »Unused global option(s)« but they are not. So I need further debugging. First step will be to eliminate all third-party packages like babel, xspace, fewerfloatpages, geometry. In past especially babel was known as breaking the option handling, e.g., the reporting of unused global options.

[Markus Kohm]

It is still a babel bug. babel defines all (not yet defined) options a empty:

\documentclass[unusedglobaloption]{article}

\usepackage{babel}

\makeatletter
\show\ds@unusedglobaloption
\makeatother

\begin{document}

\end{document}

results in:

> \ds@unusedglobaloption=macro:
->.
l.6 \show\ds@unusedglobaloption

But it should result in

> \ds@unusedglobaloption=\relax.
l.6 \show\ds@unusedglobaloption

as it does, if you do not load babel.

Because of this, KOMA-Script's \FamilyProcessOptions interpretes all options as classic options after loading babel. Your example does work, if load babel after all KOMA-Script packages.

[cookie170]

Well, babel development is under the roof of the l3 project:
https://github.com/latex3/babel
So I guess the babel maintainer will already know.

[cookie170]

https://github.com/latex3/babel/issues/134