Re: problems revealed by new demos

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

On Sat, 2 Oct 2004, Harald Harders wrote:

> The cause for introducing the new API routine was that it allows some
> interesting things that were not possible with the standard routine:
> 
> - The use is able to leave out the file extensions.
>   For the user the question is: Since epslatex generates two files, which
>   of these is the correct one? With the new routine it is possible to
>   give 'outfile.eps', 'outfile.tex', or 'outfile' as output filename.

That sounds like a sensible reason, indeed.  The difference between
pslatex and epslatex about which of the two file names you have to
specify, and which will be generated by the driver, has been a pain in the
lower back to explain to people.

> - The option fullheader made it necessary to use another file open
>   routine. The fullheader mode is ment for producing a stand alone
>   postscript or pdf output file that can be included by any application,
>   using TeX texts. 

I think you've lost me there.  How exactly is this different from 'aux
file' mode of pslatx, or the default mode of operation of the existing
epslatex?

> This is done by producing a full LaTeX file with the
>   given output file name and an additional eps file with a prefix before
>   the extension. This is done to prevent mixing up the gnuplot-produced
>   eps file without text information and the final ps or pdf file produced
>   by dvips or pdflatex.

You say "_the_ final... file" here as if it was sure such a tex'ed version
was pretty much guaranteed to be produced --- whereas in actuality, that's
not really the original intended mode of usage of either of these drivers.  
They're (originally, at least) meant for inclusion into larger LaTeX
documents, not for producing postscript figures by a detour through TeX.

Actually, if this is the kind of usage you have in mind, you could
just do pslatex without the auxfile option.

> I think, the new set_output routine could also be interesting for other
> terminals, escpecially these with binary output or with more than one
> output file.

We have binary output covered quite fine as it is.  It's really only
"split stream" drivers, i.e. only epslatex and "pslatex aux", where this
would actually make a difference, I think.

> > I have some questions about your new terminal entry.
> >
> > Right now it is permitted (though discouraged) to call
> > 'set output'  before calling 'set term'.   Would we have to
> > forbid this absolutely?
> 
> Mmh, I think it is a design bug that 'set output' immediately opens an
> output file before it knows for which terminal the file will be used. 

I don't quite agree that this should count as a bug.  A file is a file.
It's quite a simple thing, really. Drivers shouldn't need a written
instruction or a diploma to handle one ;-)

-- 
Hans-Bernhard Broeker (br...@ph...)
Even if all the snow were burnt, ashes would remain.