gnuplot-beta

Fw: Lua/Tikz terminal behavior

[Philipp K. J. <ja...@ie...>]

Ethan pointed out that I may be suffering from 
version skew between my executable (which is
straight RC2), and the various auxiliary files
that Lua/Tikz need:

> I suspect that your gnuplot executable is newer than the
> lua/gnuplot support scripts for TeX.  Make sure that these files
> have been updated during installation of your new gnuplot:
> 
> /usr/share/texmf-local/tex/latex/gnuplot/gnuplot-lua-tikz-common.tex
> /usr/share/texmf-local/tex/latex/gnuplot/gnuplot-lua-tikz.sty
> /usr/share/texmf-local/tex/latex/gnuplot/gnuplot-lua-tikz.tex
> /usr/share/texmf-local/tex/latex/gnuplot/t-gnuplot-lua-tikz.tex
> /usr/local/share/gnuplot/5.0/lua/gnuplot-tikz.lua
> 

I am working strictly with RC2, which has 
been installed (using "make install") into
some local directory (./configure --prefix...)  
The auxiliary files are all under that install
directory (and then /share/texmf/tex/latex/gnuplot).

Is there a way to verify that, at runtime, gnuplot
is using the lua files from that install dir? And
that Latex (when I later compile the resulting Tex
file) is finding the correct version of these files?

Best,

		Ph.

Re: Fw: Lua/Tikz terminal behavior

[Mojca M. <moj...@gm...>]

On Sat, Nov 8, 2014 at 7:25 AM, Philipp K. Janert wrote:
>
> Is there a way to verify that, at runtime, gnuplot
> is using the lua files from that install dir? And
> that Latex (when I later compile the resulting Tex
> file) is finding the correct version of these files?

I don't know the answer to the first question, but the second answer
is yes. Check the output written by TeX:

This is pdfTeX, Version 3.14159265-2.6-1.40.15 (TeX Live 2014)
(preloaded format=pdflatex)
 restricted \write18 enabled.
entering extended mode
(./t7.tex
LaTeX2e <2014/05/01>
Babel <3.9k> and hyphenation patterns for 2 languages loaded.
(/opt/local/share/texmf-texlive/tex/latex/base/article.cls
Document Class: article 2007/10/19 v1.4h Standard LaTeX document class
(/opt/local/share/texmf-texlive/tex/latex/base/size10.clo))
[...]
(/opt/local/share/texmf/tex/latex/gnuplot-lua-tikz/gnuplot-lua-tikz.sty
(/opt/local/share/texmf/tex/latex/pgf/frontendlayer/tikz.sty
[...]

Mojca

Re: Lua/Tikz terminal behavior

[Philipp K. J. <ja...@ie...>]

Thanks all for your comments.

Mojca - you are absolutely right: I forgot
to close the files. 
	replot; set o
did the trick.

Also thanks for the advice on quoting/escaping,
that works now, too.

I saw the bug report on arrows, so that's 
known behavior.

I am still looking for the advantages over,
say, the epslatex terminal.

Best,

		Ph.

Re: Lua/Tikz terminal behavior

[sfeam <sf...@us...>]

On Saturday, 08 November 2014 07:12:43 AM Philipp K. Janert wrote:
> 
> Thanks all for your comments.
> I am still looking for the advantages over,
> say, the epslatex terminal.

Specifically in comparison to epslatex
1) epslatex produces *.eps, not *.pdf, so not as nice if you use pdflatex
2) eoslatex does not support transparency or alpha channel images.

A more equal comparison would be to 'set term cairolatex pdf'

	Ethan

Re: Lua/Tikz terminal behavior

[Philipp K. J. <ja...@ie...>]

On Sat, 08 Nov 2014 15:20:14 -0800
sfeam <sf...@us...> wrote:

> On Saturday, 08 November 2014 07:12:43 AM Philipp K. Janert wrote:
> > 
> > Thanks all for your comments.
> > I am still looking for the advantages over,
> > say, the epslatex terminal.
> 
> Specifically in comparison to epslatex
> 1) epslatex produces *.eps, not *.pdf, so not as nice if you use
> pdflatex 2) eoslatex does not support transparency or alpha channel
> images.
> 
> A more equal comparison would be to 'set term cairolatex pdf'
> 

Yes, of course. (I am soooo 2008.)

For what it's worth, here are some differences
between the TikZ and cairolatex:

1) TikZ creates only ONE file, whereas cairolatex
  needs two (one for the actual graph, one for the
  labels).
2) The .tex files created by TikZ may be large,
  because they must contain all the data (or, for
  function plots, the fct evaluated at all points).
  (Apparently, these large tex files can cause memory
  problems for Latex, but I have not pushed it to that
  point.)
3) If you are good at Tex AND TikZ, then editing
  the generated file is a real option (whereas the 
  files created by cairolatex do not seem intended
  for manual editing).

Finally, TikZ of course draws all lines (and points,
and ...) itself, whereas cairolatex lets gnuplot 
draw the graphic elements. In principle, this gives
you access to TikZ's greater/different capabilities,
compared to gnuplot (if you know TikZ).

Best,

		Ph.

Re: Lua/Tikz terminal behavior

[Mojca M. <moj...@gm...>]

On Sun, Nov 9, 2014 at 4:12 AM, Philipp K. Janert wrote:
>
> For what it's worth, here are some differences
> between the TikZ and cairolatex:
>
> 1) TikZ creates only ONE file, whereas cairolatex
>   needs two (one for the actual graph, one for the
>   labels).
> 2) The .tex files created by TikZ may be large,
>   because they must contain all the data (or, for
>   function plots, the fct evaluated at all points).
>   (Apparently, these large tex files can cause memory
>   problems for Latex, but I have not pushed it to that
>   point.)

In the beginning when I was developing the "context" terminal (very
similar to TikZ, but TikZ didn't yet exist at that time) I often
tested with "load all.dem" and ran into "memory limit exceeded" very
often, in particular with all those 100x100 or 200x200 image files
drawn as 40.000 separate rectangles, each rectangle taking up three
not so short lines of text.

In LuaTeX most of those memory limits are gone compared to pdfTeX, so
it's easier and faster to process the graphics, but it doesn't change
the fact that some graphs need tens of thousands of not-so-short lines
which takes a lot of time to read the graphic in. In such cases of
lots of graphical elements using something that creates a separate PDF
is way more efficient.

Cairolatex didn't exist when TikZ was created.

Mojca