[NTG-context] Gamma support in TeXExec?

[NTG-context] Gamma support in TeXExec?

[Giuseppe Bilotta]

Hello,

I noticed that TeXExec has no "native" support for Gamma, in the
sense that it doesn't change the "cont-" prefix to "gamma-" when
the TeX executable is set to Omega.

I did a patch to make this possible, but of course since there are
no gamma-<language>.tex files, it doesn't work that simply. I
therefore did a more extensive patch (it has to dump the format as
cont-en and then rename it) but this is sub-optimal. It would be
very easy to do if (recent) fpTeX and teTeX supported the
--job-name option ... is this the case? If so, the patch can be
done very easily. Anybody using fpTeX or teTeX know about this?

-- 
Giuseppe "Oblomov" Bilotta

_______________________________________________
ntg-context mailing list
ntg-context@ref.ntg.nl
http://ref.ntg.nl/mailman/listinfo/ntg-context

Re: [NTG-context] Gamma support in TeXExec?

[Patrick Gundlach]

Giuseppe Bilotta <gip.bilotta@iol.it> writes:

Hello,

teTeX:


> very easy to do if (recent) fpTeX and teTeX supported the
> --job-name option ... is this the case? If so, the patch can be
> done very easily. Anybody using fpTeX or teTeX know about this?

dunno, there is:

       --progname name
              Pretend  to be program name.  This affects both the
              format used and the search paths.


perhaps this is what you are looking for? Never tested this, of course :)

Patrick


-- 
Mehr Buchstaben - mehr Spass
_______________________________________________
ntg-context mailing list
ntg-context@ref.ntg.nl
http://ref.ntg.nl/mailman/listinfo/ntg-context

Re[2]: [NTG-context] Gamma support in TeXExec?

[Giuseppe Bilotta]

Saturday, October 19, 2002 Patrick Gundlach wrote:

PG> Giuseppe Bilotta <gip.bilotta@iol.it> writes:

PG> Hello,

PG> teTeX:


>> very easy to do if (recent) fpTeX and teTeX supported the
>> --job-name option ... is this the case? If so, the patch can be
>> done very easily. Anybody using fpTeX or teTeX know about this?

PG> dunno, there is:

PG>        --progname name
PG>               Pretend  to be program name.  This affects both the
PG>               format used and the search paths.


PG> perhaps this is what you are looking for? Never tested this, of course :)

Uh, no, --progname only changes the (memory) settings, default
format and search paths. --job-name changes the
\jobname primitive ... uhm, wait a sec, this gave me an idea. Be
back soon :)

-- 
Giuseppe "Oblomov" Bilotta

_______________________________________________
ntg-context mailing list
ntg-context@ref.ntg.nl
http://ref.ntg.nl/mailman/listinfo/ntg-context

Re[3]: [NTG-context] Gamma support in TeXExec?

[Giuseppe Bilotta]

Saturday, October 19, 2002 Giuseppe Bilotta wrote:

GB> Uh, no, --progname only changes the (memory) settings, default
GB> format and search paths. --job-name changes the
GB> \jobname primitive ... uhm, wait a sec, this gave me an idea. Be
GB> back soon :)

Nope, it's not possible to change the jobname otherwise :\

-- 
Giuseppe "Oblomov" Bilotta

_______________________________________________
ntg-context mailing list
ntg-context@ref.ntg.nl
http://ref.ntg.nl/mailman/listinfo/ntg-context

Re: Re[3]: Gamma support in TeXExec?

[Olaf Weber]

Giuseppe Bilotta writes:

> Saturday, October 19, 2002 Giuseppe Bilotta wrote:

> GB> Uh, no, --progname only changes the (memory) settings, default
> GB> format and search paths. --job-name changes the
> GB> \jobname primitive ... uhm, wait a sec, this gave me an idea. Be
> GB> back soon :)

> Nope, it's not possible to change the jobname otherwise :\

Two points:

- up to web2c 7.3.8, you can use the --fmt=NAME option to set the name
  of the format to be dumped by initex (or iniomega).
- from 7.3.9 onward, this will no longer work.  Use --jobname=NAME
  instead.

-- 
Olaf Weber

               (This space left blank for technical reasons.)

Re[5]: Gamma support in TeXExec?

[Giuseppe Bilotta]

Thursday, October 24, 2002 Olaf Weber wrote:

OW> Two points:

OW> - up to web2c 7.3.8, you can use the --fmt=NAME option to set the name
OW>   of the format to be dumped by initex (or iniomega).
OW> - from 7.3.9 onward, this will no longer work.  Use --jobname=NAME
OW>   instead.

--fmt in web2c selects the format to undump, doesn't it?
--job-name in MiKTeX changes \jobname; what does --jobname in
web2c 7.3.9 do?

-- 
Giuseppe "Oblomov" Bilotta

Re: Re[5]: Gamma support in TeXExec?

[Olaf Weber]

Giuseppe Bilotta writes:

> Thursday, October 24, 2002 Olaf Weber wrote:

> OW> Two points:

> OW> - up to web2c 7.3.8, you can use the --fmt=NAME option to set the name
> OW>   of the format to be dumped by initex (or iniomega).
> OW> - from 7.3.9 onward, this will no longer work.  Use --jobname=NAME
> OW>   instead.

> --fmt in web2c selects the format to undump, doesn't it?

Now it does just that.  In 7.3.8 and earlier it also selected the
format name to dump to -- in retrospect a rather gross hack.

> --job-name in MiKTeX changes \jobname; what does --jobname in
> web2c 7.3.9 do?

It sets \jobname.

-- 
Olaf Weber

               (This space left blank for technical reasons.)

Re[7]: Gamma support in TeXExec?

[Giuseppe Bilotta]

Friday, October 25, 2002 Olaf Weber wrote:

>> --job-name in MiKTeX changes \jobname; what does --jobname in
>> web2c 7.3.9 do?

OW> It sets \jobname.

Goodie! Funny thing, MikTeX uses --job-name, while web2c uses
--jobname ... one would wish both used the same :)

-- 
Giuseppe "Oblomov" Bilotta

Re: [NTG-context] Gamma support in TeXExec?

[Hans Hagen]

At 06:13 PM 10/19/2002 +0200, Giuseppe Bilotta wrote:
>Hello,
>
>I noticed that TeXExec has no "native" support for Gamma, in the
>sense that it doesn't change the "cont-" prefix to "gamma-" when
>the TeX executable is set to Omega.
>
>I did a patch to make this possible, but of course since there are
>no gamma-<language>.tex files, it doesn't work that simply. I
>therefore did a more extensive patch (it has to dump the format as
>cont-en and then rename it) but this is sub-optimal. It would be
>very easy to do if (recent) fpTeX and teTeX supported the
>--job-name option ... is this the case? If so, the patch can be
>done very easily. Anybody using fpTeX or teTeX know about this?

--tex=binary --format=formatname

personally i think that gamma should just use a cont-* file, but with an 
ofmt extension; where etex can be distinguished by suffix, omega cannot, 
which is a bad thing since now one gets format clashes; i didn't experiment 
with this, but it may be possible to set the texformat paths in texmf.cnf 
on a per progrma basis (omega.texformats => .../web2c/omega)

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
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
                        information: http://www.pragma-ade.com/roadmap.pdf
                     documentation: http://www.pragma-ade.com/showcase.pdf
-------------------------------------------------------------------------

_______________________________________________
ntg-context mailing list
ntg-context@ref.ntg.nl
http://ref.ntg.nl/mailman/listinfo/ntg-context

Re: [NTG-context] Gamma support in TeXExec?

[Olaf Weber]

Hans Hagen writes:

> personally i think that gamma should just use a cont-* file, but with
> an ofmt extension; where etex can be distinguished by suffix, omega
> cannot, which is a bad thing since now one gets format clashes;

This is an interesting idea, and one I'd be willing to impose on Omega.

> i didn't experiment with this, but it may be possible to set the
> texformat paths in texmf.cnf on a per progrma basis
> (omega.texformats => .../web2c/omega)

This should be possible, and would be an alternative practice.

-- 
Olaf Weber

               (This space left blank for technical reasons.)

_______________________________________________
ntg-context mailing list
ntg-context@ref.ntg.nl
http://ref.ntg.nl/mailman/listinfo/ntg-context

Re: [NTG-context] Gamma support in TeXExec?

[Hans Hagen]

At 08:40 PM 10/20/2002 +0200, Olaf Weber wrote:
>Hans Hagen writes:
>
> > personally i think that gamma should just use a cont-* file, but with
> > an ofmt extension; where etex can be distinguished by suffix, omega
> > cannot, which is a bad thing since now one gets format clashes;
>
>This is an interesting idea, and one I'd be willing to impose on Omega.

Thanks! It would help a lot.

> > i didn't experiment with this, but it may be possible to set the
> > texformat paths in texmf.cnf on a per progrma basis
> > (omega.texformats => .../web2c/omega)
>
>This should be possible, and would be an alternative practice.

Right, but it would also need some coordination,

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
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
                        information: http://www.pragma-ade.com/roadmap.pdf
                     documentation: http://www.pragma-ade.com/showcase.pdf
-------------------------------------------------------------------------

_______________________________________________
ntg-context mailing list
ntg-context@ref.ntg.nl
http://ref.ntg.nl/mailman/listinfo/ntg-context

Re: [NTG-context] Gamma support in TeXExec?

[Olaf Weber]

Hans Hagen writes:
> At 08:40 PM 10/20/2002 +0200, Olaf Weber wrote:
>> Hans Hagen writes:

>>> personally i think that gamma should just use a cont-* file, but with
>>> an ofmt extension; where etex can be distinguished by suffix, omega
>>> cannot, which is a bad thing since now one gets format clashes;

>> This is an interesting idea, and one I'd be willing to impose on Omega.

> Thanks! It would help a lot.

Still, for my peace of mind I'd like to know a bit more of the
background, and why getting Omega to use a different suffix will help
so much.  (And does this mean that pdftex and pdfetex should be
modified as well?)

-- 
Olaf Weber

               (This space left blank for technical reasons.)

_______________________________________________
ntg-context mailing list
ntg-context@ref.ntg.nl
http://ref.ntg.nl/mailman/listinfo/ntg-context

Re[2]: [NTG-context] Gamma support in TeXExec?

[Giuseppe Bilotta]

Monday, October 21, 2002 Olaf Weber wrote:

OW> Hans Hagen writes:
>> At 08:40 PM 10/20/2002 +0200, Olaf Weber wrote:
>>> Hans Hagen writes:

>>>> personally i think that gamma should just use a cont-* file, but with
>>>> an ofmt extension; where etex can be distinguished by suffix, omega
>>>> cannot, which is a bad thing since now one gets format clashes;

>>> This is an interesting idea, and one I'd be willing to impose on Omega.

>> Thanks! It would help a lot.

OW> Still, for my peace of mind I'd like to know a bit more of the
OW> background, and why getting Omega to use a different suffix will help
OW> so much.  (And does this mean that pdftex and pdfetex should be
OW> modified as well?)


e-TeX already uses the .efmt extension when running in extended
mode. The reason to use different extensions is to solve easily
the problem of re-naming formats when running with different
engines (pdfLaTeX vs Lamba vs eLaTeX vs LaTeX, for example). While
it may be interesting to find new names for old formats under new
engines, it's really unnecessary (for example ConTeXt has a
preliminary support for Omega as its engine; the ConTeXt format
built on Omega has to be called Gamma, or you can't have Knuth's
or pdf-TeX *and* Omega formats at the same time).

-- 
Giuseppe "Oblomov" Bilotta

_______________________________________________
ntg-context mailing list
ntg-context@ref.ntg.nl
http://ref.ntg.nl/mailman/listinfo/ntg-context

Re: [NTG-context] Gamma support in TeXExec?

[Hans Hagen]

At 11:19 PM 10/21/2002 +0200, Olaf Weber wrote:
>Hans Hagen writes:
> > At 08:40 PM 10/20/2002 +0200, Olaf Weber wrote:
> >> Hans Hagen writes:
>
> >>> personally i think that gamma should just use a cont-* file, but with
> >>> an ofmt extension; where etex can be distinguished by suffix, omega
> >>> cannot, which is a bad thing since now one gets format clashes;
>
> >> This is an interesting idea, and one I'd be willing to impose on Omega.
>
> > Thanks! It would help a lot.
>
>Still, for my peace of mind I'd like to know a bit more of the
>background, and why getting Omega to use a different suffix will help
>so much.  (And does this mean that pdftex and pdfetex should be
>modified as well?)

it would make sense to give pdftex/pdfetex other extensions as well, just 
for the sake of consistency

on the other hand, a user can generate a cont-en.efmt file with pdfetex 
which is compatible with cont-en.efmt by etex apart from the pdf support, 
simply because pdftex is an extension [in the same way, etex is compatible 
and could have the same suffix, unless in non compatible ** mode]

omega is different and not compatible (and not that stable either), and so 
users would like to use their macro packages (+formats) for both systems, 
so having an cont-en.efmt for pdfetex alongside cont-en.oft for omega is a 
good solution or that, in that case

texexec --program=omega yourfile

would launch omega and omega would look for the oft file itself (users 
nowadays are not that aware of formats and asking them to generate them ...)

so, to be perfect it should be:

tex     -> fmt
etec    -> efmt (already)
pdftex  -> pft
pdfetex -> epmt
omega   -> oft
eomega  -> eoft
nts     -> nfmt (already)

but since pdftex is compatible is less urgent

an alternative is:

web2c/pdftex/pdftex.fmt
web2c/pdftex/pdfetex.fmt

etc

Sorry for the mess, but solutions like pdflatex versus latex versus tex 
makes users think that they are all different tex's while it's the same 
program with different macros, and pdflatex/latex is actually the same 
thing apart from the backend. For context, i would prefer to keep cont-en 
as the one and only name for the english interface version, independent of 
the texprogram used


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
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
                        information: http://www.pragma-ade.com/roadmap.pdf
                     documentation: http://www.pragma-ade.com/showcase.pdf
-------------------------------------------------------------------------

_______________________________________________
ntg-context mailing list
ntg-context@ref.ntg.nl
http://ref.ntg.nl/mailman/listinfo/ntg-context

Re[2]: [NTG-context] Gamma support in TeXExec?

[Giuseppe Bilotta]

Tuesday, October 22, 2002 Hans Hagen wrote:

HH> tex     -> fmt
HH> etec    -> efmt (already)
HH> pdftex  -> pft
HH> pdfetex -> epmt
HH> omega   -> oft
HH> eomega  -> eoft
HH> nts     -> nfmt (already)

HH> but since pdftex is compatible is less urgent

since it's efmt and nfmt, wouldn't consistency call for pfmt,
ofmt, eofmt, pefmt ?

-- 
Giuseppe "Oblomov" Bilotta

_______________________________________________
ntg-context mailing list
ntg-context@ref.ntg.nl
http://ref.ntg.nl/mailman/listinfo/ntg-context

Re: Re[2]: Gamma support in TeXExec?

[Olaf Weber]

Giuseppe Bilotta writes:

> Tuesday, October 22, 2002 Hans Hagen wrote:

> HH> tex     -> fmt
> HH> etec    -> efmt (already)
> HH> pdftex  -> pft
> HH> pdfetex -> epmt
> HH> omega   -> oft
> HH> eomega  -> eoft
> HH> nts     -> nfmt (already)

> HH> but since pdftex is compatible is less urgent

> since it's efmt and nfmt, wouldn't consistency call for pfmt,
> ofmt, eofmt, pefmt ?

Yes, but thanks to the immense success of 8+3 filenames, they could
end up being truncated to pfm, ofm, eof, pef respectively.  ofm is
known to collide with another suffix.

-- 
Olaf Weber

               (This space left blank for technical reasons.)

Re[4]: Gamma support in TeXExec?

[Giuseppe Bilotta]

Thursday, October 24, 2002 Olaf Weber wrote:

>> since it's efmt and nfmt, wouldn't consistency call for pfmt,
>> ofmt, eofmt, pefmt ?

OW> Yes, but thanks to the immense success of 8+3 filenames, they could
OW> end up being truncated to pfm, ofm, eof, pef respectively.  ofm is
OW> known to collide with another suffix.

Are there Omega implementations for DOS?

I mean, I think we should stop worrying about this. If an DOS
implementation is indeed done, they can change it with no big
problems.

-- 
Giuseppe "Oblomov" Bilotta

Re[4]: Gamma support in TeXExec?

[Hans Hagen]

At 08:54 AM 10/25/2002 +0200, Giuseppe Bilotta wrote:

>Thursday, October 24, 2002 Olaf Weber wrote:
>
> >> since it's efmt and nfmt, wouldn't consistency call for pfmt,
> >> ofmt, eofmt, pefmt ?
>
>OW> Yes, but thanks to the immense success of 8+3 filenames, they could
>OW> end up being truncated to pfm, ofm, eof, pef respectively.  ofm is
>OW> known to collide with another suffix.
>
>Are there Omega implementations for DOS?
>
>I mean, I think we should stop worrying about this. If an DOS
>implementation is indeed done, they can change it with no big
>problems.

Isn't that the djgpp variant? what does it do with suffixes?

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
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
                        information: http://www.pragma-ade.com/roadmap.pdf
                     documentation: http://www.pragma-ade.com/showcase.pdf
-------------------------------------------------------------------------

Re: Re[4]: Gamma support in TeXExec?

[Olaf Weber]

Giuseppe Bilotta writes:
> Thursday, October 24, 2002 Olaf Weber wrote:

>>> since it's efmt and nfmt, wouldn't consistency call for pfmt,
>>> ofmt, eofmt, pefmt ?

>> Yes, but thanks to the immense success of 8+3 filenames, they could
>> end up being truncated to pfm, ofm, eof, pef respectively.  ofm is
>> known to collide with another suffix.

> Are there Omega implementations for DOS?

Last time I checked, it compiled successfully using djgpp.  Actually,
Eli Zaretskii spent a lot of time making the web2c stuff configure and
compile cleanly under djgpp.  While some of the supporting files have
not been updated recently, getting it to compile again should be
comparatively easy.

It simply truncates extensions to three characters.

> I mean, I think we should stop worrying about this. If an DOS
> implementation is indeed done, they can change it with no big
> problems.

IIRC, ISO CDOM format also privileges .3 filenames; look at the
various compatibility levels.

-- 
Olaf Weber

               (This space left blank for technical reasons.)

Re[6]: Gamma support in TeXExec?

[Giuseppe Bilotta]

Friday, October 25, 2002 Olaf Weber wrote:

>> Are there Omega implementations for DOS?

OW> Last time I checked, it compiled successfully using djgpp.  Actually,
OW> Eli Zaretskii spent a lot of time making the web2c stuff configure and
OW> compile cleanly under djgpp.  While some of the supporting files have
OW> not been updated recently, getting it to compile again should be
OW> comparatively easy.

OW> It simply truncates extensions to three characters.

In this case these such implementations could "system-dependently"
change the format extension (instead of truncating, removing the
"m", for example).

>> I mean, I think we should stop worrying about this. If an DOS
>> implementation is indeed done, they can change it with no big
>> problems.

OW> IIRC, ISO CDOM format also privileges .3 filenames; look at the
OW> various compatibility levels.

Hm. I'm starting to think that Hans Hagen idea to put each format
under a separate subfolder of the \fmt directory is not that bad
... could be pass the suggestion on to the TDS committee?

-- 
Giuseppe "Oblomov" Bilotta

Re: Re[2]: Gamma support in TeXExec?

[Hans Hagen]

At 06:48 PM 10/24/2002 +0200, you wrote:
>Giuseppe Bilotta writes:
>
> > Tuesday, October 22, 2002 Hans Hagen wrote:
>
> > HH> tex     -> fmt
> > HH> etec    -> efmt (already)
> > HH> pdftex  -> pft
> > HH> pdfetex -> epmt
> > HH> omega   -> oft
> > HH> eomega  -> eoft
> > HH> nts     -> nfmt (already)
>
> > HH> but since pdftex is compatible is less urgent
>
> > since it's efmt and nfmt, wouldn't consistency call for pfmt,
> > ofmt, eofmt, pefmt ?
>
>Yes, but thanks to the immense success of 8+3 filenames, they could
>end up being truncated to pfm, ofm, eof, pef respectively.  ofm is
>known to collide with another suffix.

ah, pfm is also taken already, (font metrics)

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
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
                        information: http://www.pragma-ade.com/roadmap.pdf
                     documentation: http://www.pragma-ade.com/showcase.pdf
-------------------------------------------------------------------------