Chemical structures with plain TeX
William F Hammond
hmwlfsr at yahoo.com
Sat Jul 6 18:38:11 CEST 2019
"Taylor, P" <P.Taylor at rhul.ac.uk> writes:
> . . . Peter's formulation, while
> arguably elegant, is cryptic beyond belief. And if Peter's were to
> fail,for some unknown reason, how would one go about debugging it ? By
> deliberately piping the output of one program into the input of another,
> eschewing temporary files, no trace is left of the intermediate results,
> so one cannot go back to inspect these in an attempt to identify the
> source of the error.
> Yes, I do not deny for one second that I loathe and detest Unix, but
> that was not the motivation for posting my message — I was genuinely
> saddened (OK, I didn't actually weep, that was a slight exaggeration)
> that such a potentially useful solution to such an important (within the
> universe of discourse) problem should be transmitted as such (sorry, I
> cannot find a better phrase) complete and utter gibberish.
For seeming gibberish compare with David Carlisle's famous
xii.tex. Even non-obfuscated TeX code can be more
impenetrable than Peter's example.
I quite commonly do on-the-fly tasks that pipe the results
of a search into a command line invocation of a stream
editor with that output, in turn, piped into a command line
gawk strip or a command line perl script. For example, I
might use something like that to generate a LaTeX tabular
environment from column-delineated data in a text/plain file
sitting base 64-encoded in a mail folder.
It can save lots of time for small things.
Of course, for *ix systems, it helps to have looked at the
book by Kernighan and Pike (even if it is now rather quaint),
just as for TeX it helps to have looked at The TeXbook.
More information about the texhax