[OS X TeX] Experimental TeXShop 2.32

[Herbert Schulz]

On Feb 23, 2010, at 12:43 PM, Richard Koch wrote:

> Folks,
> 
> I put an experimental version 2.32 on the web. It is not announced on my web page, but you can get it at
> 
> 	www.uoregon.edu/~koch/texshop2.32.zip
> 
> If you decide to experiment, I suggest making a copy of ~/Library/TeXShop, just in case.
> 
> This version has nothing new except attempts to improve the experience of getting new Macros,
> Engines, etc. Some of you will be disappointed because it takes a conservative approach, but
> I can later build on this foundation. "About This Release" in the Help menu is much simpler in
> 2.32 than in 2.31.
> 
> Details: 
> 
> 1) The program now upgrades "bin", "Engines", and "Scripts" in ~/Library/TeXShop. It doesn't remove
> files which users may have added, but it upgrades default files from TeXShop, and writes any new
> default files or folders.
> 

Howdy,

I assume there were no updates there since nothing seemed to have changed in those folders.

PS: how come the xe(la)tex engines don't have the --shell-escape option set since that is the default setting in the built-in engines?

> 2) The program also writes an extra folder, ~/Library/TeXShop/New, containing new macros, etc.,
> that the user might need to install. Consequently it is never necessary to completely regenerate
> an old folder.
> 

Got it. The only folders there have files that were already part of 2.31 so no need to do any updates if you already did them for 2.31.

> 2) One consequence is that users who MODIFY a default engine should rename it. Otherwise
> their modifications will be removed when TeXShop is updated. This is
> particularly important for the four active defaults:  XeLaTeX, XeTeX, nv-metafun, and nv-metapost.
> 

Yeah... somehow I'm not going to like the xe(la)tex engines changing some the defaults I want to use and no, I don't like the idea of changing the names and then having to do the engine change in all my xe(la)tex source files. I'll simply keep copies of my versions of the engines and overwrite the ``new'' ones; not really a big deal. I already have a Backup folder in the TeXShop folder where I keep backups of the TeXShop.plist preferences file, my personal Commandcompletion.txt file and now those two engine files.

> 3) You might be interested in one technical detail. TeXShop installs a hidden file named ".Version"
> in ~/Library/TeXShop/New, listing the version of TeXShop which last wrote that folder.  It only 
> rewrites New, bin, Engines, and Scripts if it is a later version than indicated in this hidden file.
> So if you (accidentally or on purpose) run an older version of TeXShop, nothing will be overwritten
> and broken. And files in these folders will not change between updates.
> 

It's there can contains the line 2.32 as expected.

> 4) Those of you interested in Engines might press for other changes. One possible extension is to update
> any active engine, rather than just the default active engines.   Currently that doesn't happen,
> so if a new latexmk engine is installed, it must be dragged by hand to replace the old version.
> 

It would be nice to know BEFORE TeXshop starts up (just in case I've got to save something) what will automatically be changed. Otherwise I'll have to keep backups of all the engines just in case.

> For an example of why I'm hesitant and want users to be familiar with the Engines folder if they
> install other engines, consider Sage. The new engine wouldn't work unless users also update Sage.
> Indeed, they need to read the documentation in Inactive/Sage, where they discover that sagetex needs
> to be updated whenever Sage is updated. So automatically updating the sage engine, if it is active,
> would make their life worse rather than better.
> 
> (Nevertheless, I probably could be convinced to add 4)
> 
> Another enhancement would be to add a Preference item listing all engines, active or inactive, 
> where users could activate an engine by checking a box. This was recommended in the list
> discussion. I see its main advantage as ADVERTISEMENT; casual users who don't read Help 
> would nevertheless discover other useful engines: latexmk, tex4ht, etc. And frankly, this is a
> pretty convincing reason to do it. Maybe in a future version ...
> 

This will work AND give users and incentive to find out some magic that engines can bring! :-)

> 5) Users who want Macros to be automatically added to the menu will also be disappointed. The most
> feasible method to do this, it seems to me, is to add new Macros to the end of the list. But there
> are disadvantages. What should be done if an old Macro is improved, or if an old Macro
> is replaced by a more powerful new one?
> 
> In this case, I don't see a clear way to improve the situation. Let's wait and see how many powerful
> new macros are invented.
> 
> Dick 

I think being able simply open the Macro Editor and read in saved macro files is easy enough. I wish I saved the old Find Next/Previous Mark Macros (no longer needed) that way rather than have people have to copy and paste them into the Macro Editor.

Thanks. So far ti seems to work fine.

Good Luck,

Herb Schulz
(herbs at wideopenwest dot com)