Hi Haris,

Thanks for the reply.

On 4/15/07, Charilaos Skiadas <skiadas@hanover.edu> wrote:
Not sure we should really distinguish between mytex and mylatex. Any
use cases where both are needed as options?

I agonised over this. The reason I proposed what I did is not because
I think it's crucial to have both, but because I don't think the simplification
(of only supporting one) is important enough to break TeXShop compatibility for.

Perhaps we could just document one of them. That way we
a) don't overburden the user with possibilities, but
b) still meet the expectations (and support the documents) of someone
switching from TeXShop.

Also, what exactly do we mean when we say "compilation route is
'latex' "? latex would produce a dvi file. Do we then convert it to
pdf, and if so how?

Yes, we convert it to PDF. As for how to do this, perhaps:
1. Look for simpdftex, and use it if present.
2. Look for altpdflatex, and use it if present.
3. Use tex, dvips, ps2pdf, if all are present.
4. Give up with an error.

Also, should the user have a way of specifying that they want dvi
output instead of pdf output?

I reckon that if someone wants that (or any other weird combination of things), they can just write a custom compilation script and use mylatex.

> 1. Use the %!TEX TS-program specification in the source file.
> 2. Use the %!TEX TS-program specification in the master file.

Actually those 1,2 are really one, using the options.sh/options.rb
script/library. There might be other files between the source file
and the master file, and those should be looked at as well. Also keep
in mind that there are multiple ways to define what the master file
is (I think options.sh/rb takes care of that).

Hmm. My ordering was quite careful here: options.sh actually does it the wrong way round, i.e. the master file spec over-rides the one in the source file itself! The Typeset & View script justifies this with the comment:

  # Yes, this means options in master files override options in the individual file
  # this may not exactly be ideal, but it's easiest. Show me a file structure that this
  # is a problem for, and I'll show a poorly-designed LaTeX file

which I think speaks for itself. (I'm not even convinced by the "easiest": it's not exactly hard to do this properly!) As for chaining more than two files: if you consider that an important feature, then consider it done.

Looks good overall.

Great! When we've reached agreeement on all the details, I'll get coding.