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.g., no errors => close, > > warnings => don't > > I think you're describing some kind of TeXworks-specific feature > for running scripts after the TeX engine, separately from running > the TeX engine. That's different from what I had in mind, which > was to *replace* the TeX engine by a script that internally runs > TeX and then returns 0 or 1 conditional on whatever checks are > desired. TeXworks would only see this as "TeX returned 1" without > knowing there was a script involved. It only needs to be able to > run the script instead of TeX, which can be achieved by making the > script executable and telling TeXworks "use this executable file as > the TeX engine." > > I was trying to address the request for TeX to return 1 on overfull > hboxes, as directly as possible. A script that replaces TeX can > give that effect without needing any modifications to TeX nor > TeXworks.
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 wrappers into PATH and call the real programs with an absolute path. This doesn't work if your tex file invokes another program which is supposed to be in PATH. Nowadays EPS files are converted to PDF on-the-fly, if necessary. But it can only work if the directory containing the TeX Live binaries is in PATH so that epstopdf can be found. Your suggestion implies that there are two programs with the same name name in different directories. This is nasty and certainly causes more problems than it solves. And please consider that there are zillions of TeX engines/formats nowadays and you need wrappers for all of them. Phil suggested to make the exit status of TeX engines configurable in order to save time. But if your wrapper scans the log file in order to determine the proper exit status, you don't save any time at all. The best solution is to run a script which inspects the log file after each TeX run. Emacs/AUCTeX is doing this for more than two decades. Programming languages like Perl or Lua are probably even faster than Emacs Lisp. Not to mention that computers are much faster than 20 years ago. 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. Regards, Reinhard -- ------------------------------------------------------------------ Reinhard Kotucha Phone: +49-511-3373112 Marschnerstr. 25 D-30167 Hannover mailto:reinhard.kotu...@web.de ------------------------------------------------------------------ -------------------------------------------------- Subscriptions, Archive, and List information, etc.: http://tug.org/mailman/listinfo/xetex
