From aikishugyo at gmail.com Thu Dec 1 06:01:30 2016 From: aikishugyo at gmail.com (Gernot Hassenpflug) Date: Thu, 1 Dec 2016 14:01:30 +0900 Subject: [pdftex] Correction to pdftex-a.pdf Message-ID: Hello all, I've been reading various pdfTeX manuals (from the early TUGboat article in 1997, to various presentation style files pdftex-s.pdf and the current pdftex-a.pdf on CTAN), and noticed one recurring inconsistency in the font explanation section. Using reference [1], in Section 6.1 Map files, Page 12, there is: "If the fontflags field is not given, pdfTEX treats it as being 4, a symbolic font." Problem: 4 is script font, symbolic font is 3 according to Table 3. Correction: I don't know what pdfTeX does here, but I suspect 3 rather than 4, if the font is to be treated as symbolic. [1] The pdfTEX user manual (May 9, 2016) pdftex-a.pdf (up to version 1.40.17) [2] 62 page version (up to version 1.20b): http://www.pragma-ade.com/pdftex/pdftex-s.pdf [3] 47 page version (older): http://vlado.fmf.uni-lj.si/texceh/kako/tex2pdf/ex/pdftex-s.pdf [4] The pdfTEX user manual TUGboat, Volume 18 (1997), No.4 https://www.tug.org/TUGboat/tb18-4/tb57than.pdf Best regards, Gernot Hassenpflug From karl at freefriends.org Thu Dec 1 23:29:08 2016 From: karl at freefriends.org (Karl Berry) Date: Thu, 1 Dec 2016 22:29:08 GMT Subject: [pdftex] Correction to pdftex-a.pdf In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <201612012229.uB1MT8Rw009709@freefriends.org> "If the fontflags field is not given, pdfTEX treats it as being 4, a symbolic font." Problem: 4 is script font, symbolic font is 3 according to Table 3. Thanks for reporting that. I will fix it for the next release. -k From j.burtscher at gmail.com Wed Dec 7 21:59:28 2016 From: j.burtscher at gmail.com (Johannes Burtscher) Date: Wed, 7 Dec 2016 21:59:28 +0100 Subject: [pdftex] Access value of output-directory Message-ID: <26FAA408-7282-4761-98AB-8117E6090ABE@gmail.com> Hi, am I right that there is no way to access the value of the '-output-directory' command line option from within pdfTeX? If true, I think it would be very convenient for package authors if you could provide a new primitive to do so. I understand that one can access the argument vector from within LuaTeX, but I think a lot of authors would rather not make their packages LuaTeX-only (at least for now). Regards, Johannes From karl at freefriends.org Wed Dec 7 23:39:28 2016 From: karl at freefriends.org (Karl Berry) Date: Wed, 7 Dec 2016 22:39:28 GMT Subject: [pdftex] Access value of output-directory In-Reply-To: <26FAA408-7282-4761-98AB-8117E6090ABE@gmail.com> Message-ID: <201612072239.uB7MdStu014072@freefriends.org> am I right that there is no way to access the value of the '-output-directory' command line option from within pdfTeX? As far as I can recall (and discern from a quick glance at the sources), that is correct. I'm sure someone will correct me if I'm wrong. If true, I think it would be very convenient for package authors if you could provide a new primitive to do so. It could be done. But what do you want to do with the value? I understand that one can access the argument vector from within LuaTeX, but I think a lot of authors would rather not make their packages LuaTeX-only (at least for now). Fully agreed. Although it's clear that "a lot of authors" don't need the output-directory value, since it has never been available at the TeX level -- yours is the first request I remember ever seeing, anywhere. best, karl From j.burtscher at gmail.com Thu Dec 8 12:28:09 2016 From: j.burtscher at gmail.com (Johannes Burtscher) Date: Thu, 8 Dec 2016 12:28:09 +0100 Subject: [pdftex] Access value of output-directory In-Reply-To: <201612072239.uB7MdStu014072@freefriends.org> References: <201612072239.uB7MdStu014072@freefriends.org> Message-ID: It could be done. But what do you want to do with the value? I only recently wrote a small package for a co-worker and had to rely on an external tool and shell-escape. In such a case it would be very convenient to know whether the user wants all newly created files in another directory or not. (To be honest, this is the only use case where I can imagine beeing in need of this value). I also found it rather awkward that I can read files from the output-directory whereas \pdffilemoddate, for example, has no idea where to find them. ... Although it's clear that "a lot of authors" don't need the output-directory value, since it has never been available at the TeX level -- yours is the first request I remember ever seeing, anywhere. "A lot of authors" was certainly exaggerated but every now and then such a question pops up: - http://tex.stackexchange.com/q/136012/10350 - http://tex.stackexchange.com/q/294931/10350 In fact, the first question mentions a request posted right here on this mailing list. Regards, Johannes From karl at freefriends.org Sun Dec 11 00:58:04 2016 From: karl at freefriends.org (Karl Berry) Date: Sat, 10 Dec 2016 23:58:04 GMT Subject: [pdftex] Access value of output-directory In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <201612102358.uBANw49j019861@freefriends.org> rely on an external tool and shell-escape. ... - http://tex.stackexchange.com/q/136012/10350 - http://tex.stackexchange.com/q/294931/10350 Indeed, all of these examples use \write18. My intuitive reaction is that once \write18 is involved, you have full access to the entire system, and shouldn't (don't) need the engine's help to get access to the value. Enrico showed one way. I can agree it would be nice, in a way, but to me, the benefit of a minor cleanliness doesn't justify a new primitive at this late date. In another way, I also wouldn't want to do anything to encourage use of \write18. But, it's not up to me alone. Thanh (and anyone else), what do you think? best, karl From j.burtscher at gmail.com Mon Dec 12 10:08:57 2016 From: j.burtscher at gmail.com (Johannes Burtscher) Date: Mon, 12 Dec 2016 10:08:57 +0100 Subject: [pdftex] Access value of output-directory In-Reply-To: <201612102358.uBANw49j019861@freefriends.org> References: <201612102358.uBANw49j019861@freefriends.org> Message-ID: <1B6AF8AA-43A9-4D2D-89B7-6C685FCECE72@gmail.com> Final comment Karl; I promise! :) Enrico showed one way. He kind of did. But I think the whole point of a new primitive would be to release the user of the duty to specify the output directory *twice* (please correct me if you're not referring to https://goo.gl/gs3r5g). My experience is that as soon as you have to change something at two places, you sooner or later forget about one. In another way, I also wouldn't want to do anything to encourage use of \write18. I am not fully convinced that it would encourage the use of \write18. For sure, it would be convenient for a few *package authors*, but I don't think that it would get a "normal" user to turn on \write18 any sooner. ... the benefit of a minor cleanliness doesn't justify a new primitive at this late date. Fully understandable. Thanks! Johannes