Possible bug in texexec

Possible bug in texexec

[Morten Høgholm]

Dan Luecking has reported the following problem on c.t.t.:

When mptopdf is used on a .mp file it preprocesses the file and
the result (on my system it seems always to be named mptrace.tmp)
is run through mpost.  This mptrace.tmp has new-lines after every
semicolon (;).  This causes an error when the semicolon is part of
a literal string, because mpost syntax requires such strings to be
entirely on one line.

I mentioned also texexec, because mptopdf seems to call texexec for
some purposes. I know too little perl to even know what to look for,
much less propose a patch.

This behavior has been confirmed under WinXP (fptex = TeXLive8) and
Mac OS X (tetex).

This particular problem can affect the latest mfpic (0.7, which I
maintain) if a user processes mfpic's .mp output file with mptopdf.
Users can work around the bug by modifying their copy of mfpic.tex,
changing the line
        GBmsg "Bad mfpic installation; mfpic and grafbase %
to something like
        GBmsg "Bad mfpic installation: mfpic and grafbase %
This change will be provided as patch to mfpic shortly.

-- 
Morten Høgholm

Re: Possible bug in texexec

[Hans Hagen]

At 20:35 15/04/2004, you wrote:
>Dan Luecking has reported the following problem on c.t.t.:
>
>When mptopdf is used on a .mp file it preprocesses the file and
>the result (on my system it seems always to be named mptrace.tmp)
>is run through mpost.  This mptrace.tmp has new-lines after every
>semicolon (;).  This causes an error when the semicolon is part of
>a literal string, because mpost syntax requires such strings to be
>entirely on one line.

the reason for adding newlines after ;'s is that there have been problems 
with the metapost buffer length

i didn't test itm, but maybe

             s/(btex.*?)\;(.*?etex)/$1\@\@\@$2/gmois;
             s/(\".*?)\;(.*?\")/$1\@\@\@$2/gmois;             # add this line
             s/\;/\;\n/gmois;
             s/\n\n/\n/gmois;
             s/(btex.*?)\@\@\@(.*?etex)/$1\;$2/gmois;
             s/(\".*?)\@\@\@(.*?\")/$1\;$2/gmois;             # and this one

somewhere around line 2260 in texexec.pl will help

Hans

Re: Possible bug in texexec

[Morten Høgholm]

On Fri, 16 Apr 2004 09:31:04 +0200, Hans Hagen <pragma@wxs.nl> wrote:

> the reason for adding newlines after ;'s is that there have been 
> problems with the metapost buffer length
>
> i didn't test itm, but maybe
>
>              s/(btex.*?)\;(.*?etex)/$1\@\@\@$2/gmois;
>              s/(\".*?)\;(.*?\")/$1\@\@\@$2/gmois;             # add this 
> line
>              s/\;/\;\n/gmois;
>              s/\n\n/\n/gmois;
>              s/(btex.*?)\@\@\@(.*?etex)/$1\;$2/gmois;
>              s/(\".*?)\@\@\@(.*?\")/$1\;$2/gmois;             # and this 
> one
>
> somewhere around line 2260 in texexec.pl will help

This fixes Dan's problems -- he says thank you very much.
-- 
Morten Høgholm