# [texhax] Any crazy math formulas for testing a TeX language interpreter

Joseph Wright joseph.wright at morningstar2.co.uk
Mon Jan 11 23:07:20 CET 2016

On 11/01/2016 21:55, Joseph Wright wrote:
> On 11/01/2016 20:54, David Carlisle wrote:
>> On 11 January 2016 at 20:40, Douglas McKenna <doug at mathemaesthetics.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> All/any -
>>>
>>
>>
>> Been looking forward to seeing that become public:-)
>>
>>> So I'm wondering if > there's some TeX-validation test file, using the
>> plain format and not dependent on LaTeX,
>>
>> is there any reason not to use latex (in particular does latex.ltx not
>>
>> I ask as we've done a lot of work over the last couple of years to make the
>> core latex regression test suite (that basically runs a set of tests and
>> compares normalised log files against stored reference versions)  work with
>> multiple engines (currently it passes with (pdf)tex, luatex and xetex (and
>> has known behaviour with (u)ptex)
>> so it would be interesting to see what happens if you ran the test suite
>> with jsbox.
>>
>> David
>
> Note that this will need e-TeX. (Aside: I'm be very keen to know about
> primitive coverage beyond TeX90, particularly e-TeX, \pdfstrcmp or
> equivalent and Unicode-related primitives, in particular \Uchar and
> \Ucharcat. See expl3 for why these are important.)

Ah, see that e-TeX is covered.

I'm not clear on the 'no DVI or PDF' business: what *does* it produce
and how does one save/print/transmit it?

Joseph