From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 X-Msuck: nntp://news.gmane.io/gmane.comp.tex.context/5071 Path: main.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Taco Hoekwater Newsgroups: gmane.comp.tex.context Subject: Re: problem with texexec and inline metapost Date: Sat, 14 Jul 2001 12:35:32 +0200 Sender: owner-ntg-context@let.uu.nl Message-ID: <3B502074.E1655240@quicknet.nl> References: <5.1.0.14.0.20010703192446.00a94340@public.uni-hamburg.de> <5.1.0.14.0.20010714115741.00aaaed0@public.uni-hamburg.de> NNTP-Posting-Host: coloc-standby.netfonds.no Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Trace: main.gmane.org 1035395687 30990 80.91.224.250 (23 Oct 2002 17:54:47 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@main.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 23 Oct 2002 17:54:47 +0000 (UTC) Cc: Hans Hagen , ConTeXt mailing list Original-To: Eckhart =?iso-8859-1?Q?Guth=F6hrlein?= Xref: main.gmane.org gmane.comp.tex.context:5071 X-Report-Spam: http://spam.gmane.org/gmane.comp.tex.context:5071 Eckhart Guthöhrlein wrote: > > At 08:47 04.07.2001 +0200, Hans Hagen wrote: > >At 08:01 PM 7/3/01 +0200, Eckhart Guthöhrlein wrote: > > >When running texexec over my input file containing a metapost graphic > > >(first time, no mpgraph files exist), metapost is called after the first > > >run, but then tex is not called again. Therefore, I have to call texexec > > >twice to actually get the graphics in my dvi file. Accordingly, changes to > > >the mp code become effective only after the second call to texexec (when > > >creating pdf. - the dvi driver of course finds the updated file after the > > >first run). I thought texexec would do this job for me, so perhaps there is > > >a switch I didn't see yet? > > ... > > > > >What latest? The ones i uploaded the last few days *do* an extra pass with > >external mp graphics {based on checksum calculation] but only with the > >undocumented --automprun, so > > > >texexec --automprun yourfile.tex > > Runtime graphics with \write18 are compiled each tex run, no matter if they > were changed or not. A checksum calculation could speed up things > significantly. Perhaps this is a feature worth thinking of, if it can be > implemented with acceptable effort. You need checksum calculation in TeX macros then, since nothing else is called inbetween. Possible, of course, but it might actually be slower than calling MP regardless of change. Greetings, Taco