[OS X TeX] LaTeX Books
maarten.sneep at xs4all.nl
Sun Jun 26 20:01:38 CEST 2005
On 24 Jun 2005, at 17:29, Alain Schremmer wrote:
> I did and I think that you are right but perhaps not for the reason
> you might have thought of. /My/ reason is that XYPIC, PSTricks, and
> METAPOST put the fear of the gods into me.
Well, they don't bite ;) It strongly depends on the type of graphics
you need: I need mostly graphs, with axis labels, and the capability
of using TeX to produce those labels is indispensable for me, and for
me the main reason to use metapost. Since it is a companion program
to TeX, the program has some features that you're already familiar
with. (though the two languages are radically different).
> Maybe, one day I will though. But, if you would, could you point me
> toward an explanation of the pro and con of doing graphics "within"
Pro: any labels that appear within your figure will match the main
Con: not wysiwyg (may be a pro, though for figures I'm not so sure
there are many who will argue in favour).
> The only drawback I can see to doing graphic "without" and using
> "include" as I am doing is having figures in dozens of separate pdf
> files which might complicate downloads.
Although I still have all figures in separate files. It is a matter
of organisation in the file-system (and don't let anyone tell you you
don't need that with SpotLight).
> On the other hand, if there were a converter from one of
> Intaglio's output formats to LaTeX, /that/ would be /very/ nice to
> use at the end.
If you're happy with exporting Intaglio to pdf, by all means go for it.
--------------------- Info ---------------------
Mac-TeX Website: http://www.esm.psu.edu/mac-tex/
& FAQ: http://latex.yauh.de/faq/
TeX FAQ: http://www.tex.ac.uk/faq
List Post: <mailto:MacOSX-TeX at email.esm.psu.edu>
More information about the macostex-archives