Tip for texexec

Tip for texexec

[Giuseppe Bilotta]

Hello,

I have a small suggestion for a better texexec, regarding the
--result.

First of all, MiKTeX has an option to change jobname at invocation
time:

tex dog.tex --job-name=cat

Thus, it would be nice if texexec took advantage of this feature while
executing the --result option under MiKTeX.

More in general, I find the way texexec acts now (producing the
correctly named pdf/dvi and then renaming it) is not the best: a
better way, IMHO, would be to rename the source file, process it, and
then take it back to the original name (or: copying it, processing it,
deleting it).

Why I came to such a conclusion? I'm writing three linked documents,
which I want to produce in both electronic and printable form, with
different settings in the two environments. This is no problem, using
the mode commands. Yet it causes problems because:

1) I cannot couple the printed and electronic form (even if I have
commands like \coupledocument[get-e][gettex-e][][Procurarsi il TeX] at
the top of my document);

2) If I compile the documents in one form, I have to remove the
temporary files before being able to compile the docs in the other
form;

Using different jobnames (renaming the source file, or using the
appropriate switch when available) would solve the problems. Or not?

Giuseppe

Re: Tip for texexec

[Hans Hagen]

At 12:05 AM 3/30/01 +0200, Giuseppe Bilotta wrote:
>Hello,
>
>I have a small suggestion for a better texexec, regarding the
>--result.
>
>First of all, MiKTeX has an option to change jobname at invocation
>time:
>
>tex dog.tex --job-name=cat
>
>Thus, it would be nice if texexec took advantage of this feature while
>executing the --result option under MiKTeX.

i'll give it a thought, because then i have to test there for miktex; there
is 

--passon="--job-name=cat" 

>More in general, I find the way texexec acts now (producing the
>correctly named pdf/dvi and then renaming it) is not the best: a
>better way, IMHO, would be to rename the source file, process it, and
>then take it back to the original name (or: copying it, processing it,
>deleting it).

Hm. The reason for the current approach is that it leaves the original
untouched. I can then better make something --jobname that copies and runs
th ealternative.   

>Why I came to such a conclusion? I'm writing three linked documents,
>which I want to produce in both electronic and printable form, with
>different settings in the two environments. This is no problem, using
>the mode commands. Yet it causes problems because:

hm, are you sure that this is due to the --result? I assume you couple all
right? [see pdftex-t.tex for an example]

>1) I cannot couple the printed and electronic form (even if I have
>commands like \coupledocument[get-e][gettex-e][][Procurarsi il TeX] at
>the top of my document);

see remark 

>2) If I compile the documents in one form, I have to remove the
>temporary files before being able to compile the docs in the other
>form;

texutil --purge 

will be your friend. 

Hans
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                  Hans Hagen | PRAGMA ADE | pragma@wxs.nl
                      Ridderstraat 27 | 8061 GH Hasselt | The Netherlands
 tel: +31 (0)38 477 53 69 | fax: +31 (0)38 477 53 74 | www.pragma-ade.com
-------------------------------------------------------------------------