From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 X-Msuck: nntp://news.gmane.io/gmane.comp.tex.context/5073 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 12:57:38 +0200 Sender: owner-ntg-context@let.uu.nl Message-ID: <3B5025A2.EE2BF513@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> <5.1.0.14.0.20010714123334.00a8a840@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 1035395688 31001 80.91.224.250 (23 Oct 2002 17:54:48 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@main.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 23 Oct 2002 17:54:48 +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:5073 X-Report-Spam: http://spam.gmane.org/gmane.comp.tex.context:5073 Eckhart Guthöhrlein wrote: > > But what about having texexec/perl calculate the checksums, writing them to > an auxiliary file, and tex just reading them? And in any case, one can be > sure that the mp code will not change during the same call to texexec (or > can there be exceptions?), so that if, say, three tex runs are necessary, > one run of mp would be sufficient. Setting some switch may be sufficient to > achieve this. It *can* change with a texexec, imagine using the page number in the MP code, for example. More serious problem: even if texexec calculates the checksum, then how would the TeX macro code know its status without first calculating a checksum itself? It needs to compare two checksums: one from this run against the one from the previous run. Greetings, Taco