gnuplot-beta

file name used in epslatex term

[V. <gae...@en...>]

    Hello,

  I am currently running Gnuplot on a filename with an output name with
several dot, eg : foo.bar :
  set output foo.bar.tex

 If I use the epslatex terminal it generates a
eps file called foo.bar.eps, and a tex file in which there is the line :

\includegraphics{foo.bar}%

  Now I don't know the graphicx package very well, but it seems that it
tries to load the file foo.bar and not the file foo.bar.eps, because it
is confused by the extra dot. Manually edit foo.bar.tex to change
"foo.bar" to "foo.bar.eps" works, but the out of the box tex file does
not compile. I suggest changing the epslatex driver so that it prints
the line :

\includegraphics{foo.bar.eps}%

  in the file to avoid this problem.

  Have I been clear ? (I don't really think so). Is there a workaround ?
Is there anything wrong with having in the tex file foo.bar.eps rather
than foo.bar.

  Ga=EBl

PS : if you are interested in my case the name foo.bar is generated by a
script and is FORT.max.auto29 !

Re: file name used in epslatex term

[Hans-Bernhard B. <br...@ph...>]

Ga=EBl Varoquaux wrote:
>   I am currently running Gnuplot on a filename with an output name with=

> several dot, eg : foo.bar :
>   set output foo.bar.tex

My immediate answer is: don't do that.  It's going to cause confusion,=20
and it's not necessary to do it that way, so don't do it that way.

>  If I use the epslatex terminal it generates a
> eps file called foo.bar.eps, and a tex file in which there is the line =
:
>=20
> \includegraphics{foo.bar}%
>=20
>   Now I don't know the graphicx package very well, but it seems that it=

> tries to load the file foo.bar and not the file foo.bar.eps, because it=

> is confused by the extra dot.=20

It's not confused, it follows its documented behaviour: if the filename=20
has an extension, use the name as-is.  If not, try several extensions=20
from a (configurable) list of allowed ones, which includes .eps in a=20
plain LaTeX run, so {foo_bar} would find foo_bar.eps just fine.

> not compile. I suggest changing the epslatex driver so that it prints
> the line :
>=20
> \includegraphics{foo.bar.eps}%
>=20
>   in the file to avoid this problem.

Absolutely no.  This would kill one of the nicest features of the=20
epslatex driver: the fact that you just have to ps2pdf the eps part, and =

the LaTeX part will pass pdflatex flawlessly.