Jonathan Kew wrote:
> I'll try to get an experimental patch ready shortly. Or, of course,
> someone else is welcome to try. I don't think it's very hard, but it is
> more than just a single number.
I have never attempted to modify *TeX since it ceased to be compiled as
Pascal (a language which
I eventually managed to build xetex (on Ubuntu 14.04, with a TeX Live
2015 installation kept up to date) by cloning the xetex sources from
sourceforge, then modified, as an experiment, xetex.web, replacing 63
by 1023 in the places that seemed relevant, only guessing which ones
they were, noticed th
Reinhard Kotucha wrote:
> Phil assumed that scanning the log file is time consuming and thus
> suggested configurable exit values. But as Zdeněk already pointed
> out, scanning the log file is not time consuming at all.
Whether or not scanning the log file is time-consuming is not really my
po
On 18/3/16 08:43, Peter Mukunda Pasedach wrote:
I eventually managed to build xetex (on Ubuntu 14.04, with a TeX Live
2015 installation kept up to date) by cloning the xetex sources from
sourceforge, then modified, as an experiment, xetex.web, replacing 63
by 1023 in the places that seemed releva
On 2016-03-17 at 00:41:45 -0500, msk...@ansuz.sooke.bc.ca wrote:
> On Wed, 16 Mar 2016, Stefan Löffler wrote:
> > More importantly, though, several scripts could be run (say, one
> > that looks only for errors and only that only looks for warnings)
> > which could give contradicting results (e
Reinhard Kotucha wrote:
> It's true that only TeX /knows/ whether bad boxes occurred during a
> TeX run. But TeX passes this knowledge to the log file, hence
> nothing is lost and the log file even provides more information
> (line numbers).
But, as previously pointed out, a TeX program can
Den 19 mar 2016 11:00 skrev "Philip Taylor" :
>
>
>
> Reinhard Kotucha wrote:
>
> > It's true that only TeX /knows/ whether bad boxes occurred during a
> > TeX run. But TeX passes this knowledge to the log file, hence
> > nothing is lost and the log file even provides more information
> > (line nu
Hi,
I would like to ask for some help with building XeTeX from git.
After fetching the sources (0d17a3eb4) I end up with the following autofoo hell:
https://sourceforge.net/p/xetex/bugs/126/ (see attachment)
If you prefer to check it in the browser, here's the same file:
http://pastebin.
Dear Philip,
As Stefan says:
SL> However, it can be worked around relatively easily by manually
SL> opening the console (which should then remain open until closed manually).
I think it is best to open the console window manually
by CTRL+\. Then the console window is not closed, and you can
jum
I'd like to suggest a potentially dumb idea. So far, I've seen only one
objection to keeping the console open based on the whatever the
after-typesetting scripts do. Namely, that they might disagree with each
other, and then what is poor TeXworks to do? But I say it's obvious what
it should do i
Zdeněk Wagner wrote:
> Even now it is possible to swich to \scrollmode or \nonstopmode and
> issue \errmsg although no error appeared. As another test I inserted the
> following:
>
> \setbox254=\hbox to .1pt{A}
>
> It reports an overfull hbox although the box is never used. Thus if the
> code
Peter,
I have just pushed a new experimental branch named "max-hyph-len" to the
xetex repository. The changes here implement a new integer parameter
\XeTeXhyphenatablelength
which defaults to 63 (to maintain existing behavior), but can be
increased to allow longer words to be hyphenated. (
Any news on this? If it's just one constant whose value I would have
to increase in my private copy of the code, before recompling, for
testing purposes, which one would that be?
Peter
On Wed, Mar 16, 2016 at 12:37 AM, Zdenek Wagner wrote:
> 2016-03-16 0:06 GMT+01:00 Jonathan Kew :
>>
>> On 15/3
Dear Akira-san --
> As Stefan says:
>
> SL> However, it can be worked around relatively easily by manually
> SL> opening the console (which should then remain open until closed
> manually).
>
> I think it is best to open the console window manually
> by CTRL+\. Then the console window is not clo
I finally managed to build it in such a way that it identifies itself
with the right version number, I had to do a new clone of the sources
for that, didn't find out how to clean them up. Now how do I set the
parameter, as \XeTeXhyphenatablelength=1023 somewhere in my preamble
or as a command line
Peter Mukunda Pasedach wrote:
> I finally managed to build it in such a way that it identifies itself
> with the right version number, I had to do a new clone of the sources
> for that, didn't find out how to clean them up. Now how do I set the
> parameter, as \XeTeXhyphenatablelength=1023 somew
That would be fmtutil --all? Yes I ran that. Maybe something wrong
with my test file?
--
\documentclass[12pt]{article}
\usepackage{fontspec}
\usepackage{polyglossia}
\setdefaultlanguage{sanskrit}
\newfontfamily{\sanskritfont}{Latin Modern Roman}
\XeTeXhyphenatablelength=1023
\begin{docume
Peter Mukunda Pasedach wrote:
> That would be fmtutil --all? Yes I ran that. Maybe something wrong
> with my test file?
Ah, there I can't help, I am afraid; it is written in LaTeX, a language
with which I have near-zero familiarity. Is it possible for you to test
in a plain e-TeX environment,
On 19/3/16 20:30, Peter Mukunda Pasedach wrote:
That would be fmtutil --all? Yes I ran that. Maybe something wrong
with my test file?
Yes, in a sense... you're running into another quirk of TeX: it doesn't
attempt to hyphenate the first word of a paragraph. And in your file,
every word is the
Hi Mojca,
> Is there any better command than ./build.sh shortcut that I should be
> using? Can I somehow run separate steps for configure, make, test?
XeTeX’s build.sh only sets a number of variables and runs configure
and make, so if you’re scripting the process, it does indeed make se
On 17/3/16 05:16, Peter Mukunda Pasedach wrote:
Any news on this? If it's just one constant whose value I would have
to increase in my private copy of the code, before recompling, for
testing purposes, which one would that be?
Unfortunately, it's not just a single constant; there are a number o
Please, this is clearly not leading anywhere, and it has long since diverged
from the topics this list has been created for.
> 18 mar 2016 kl. 19:20 skrev Philip Taylor :
>
> Are you /determined/ not to let this matter be brought to a close,
> Arthur, in just the same way that you were clearly d
This seems to work, at least for my test file. I tried on one of my
much more complex real files, including reledmac etc., and there your
quick hack for first word of paragraph didn't work yet, but if I
manually add the \hskip 0pt \relax at the beginning of a paragraph
then it works there, too. For
Remember that LaTeX macros may redefine \everypar. For instance all
sectioning command (\section, \subsection etc.) are implemented via
\@startsection which ends with \@afterheading which uses \everypar to
change some penalties and indentation of the first paragraph. I am not sure
whether it is res
On 19/3/16 21:57, Peter Mukunda Pasedach wrote:
This seems to work, at least for my test file. I tried on one of my
much more complex real files, including reledmac etc., and there your
quick hack for first word of paragraph didn't work yet,
That doesn't surprise me; I'm sure LaTeX will be maki
On Fri, Mar 18, 2016 at 12:07:26PM +, Philip Taylor wrote:
> You will, I am sure, be
> aware that I had not pursued the topic for some time
That's simply not true.
Arthur
--
Subscripti
Here, here (or is it "Hear, hear"?)
Peter W.
On 18/03/16 19:19, Roland Kuhn wrote:
Please, this is clearly not leading anywhere, and it has long since diverged
from the topics this list has been created for.
18 mar 2016 kl. 19:20 skrev Philip Taylor :
Are you /determined/ not to let this ma
I have just pushed a new experimental branch named "max-hyph-len" to the
xetex repository. The changes here implement a new integer parameter
\XeTeXhyphenatablelength
Users of windows can test xetex-0.6 by obtaining a
32bit binary:
http://members2.jcom.home.ne.jp/wt1357ak/xetex-6-w3
2016-03-18 10:55 GMT+01:00 Philip Taylor :
>
>
> Arthur Reutenauer wrote:
>
> > Of course they can /know/: by inspecting the log file. It contains
> > the exact transcript of the TeX run, and thus reflects all of TeX's
> > knowledge about what happened when compiling the file; as far as
> > overf
On Wed, 16 Mar 2016, Stefan Löffler wrote:
> More importantly, though, several scripts could be run (say, one that
> looks only for errors and only that only looks for warnings) which could
> give contradicting results (e.g., no errors => close, warnings => don't
I think you're describing some kin
Are you /determined/ not to let this matter be brought to a close,
Arthur, in just the same way that you were clearly determined not to
allow the debate on Greek & Latin hyphenation be brought to a close on
another list ? My sole contribution to this thread post 13th inst. was
one response in repl
On Fri, 18 Mar 2016, Reinhard Kotucha wrote:
> > hboxes, as directly as possible. A script that replaces TeX can
> Matthew, honestly, I don't think that people didn't understand your
> suggestion. There are just a few problems and there is no real
> benefit, IMO.
>
> You suggested to put the wr
32 matches
Mail list logo