At 1:21 PM -0400 12/5/98, Fred L. Drake wrote:
>Uli Wortmann writes:
> >
> > Fred> Override.pm overrides it. Simply removing the definition in
> > Fred> Override.pm makes things work. This seems to be the most
> >
> > Hmmh, just a wild guess: I discovered that the calls to getcwd from
> > within latex2html use a sloppy syntax, that is &getcwd instead of
> > getcwd(). This comes from days before getcwd was defined in
> > Override.pm. Can you check that your call in question does indeed call
> > getcwd()?
> The calls in question are *in* Override.pm, and use the old syntax.
>Changing these to the new syntax doesn't help; searching for files
>along a path ($TEXINPUTS) doesn't work. The version of getcwd()
>defined in Override.pm just doesn't work for me, and
>make_directory_absolute() seems pretty close to necessary from where
>I'm standing.
There seem to be 3 issues here:
A. does getcwd() work properly.
B. using the value of $TEXINPUTS within texexpand .
C. adjusting the value of $ENV{'TEXINPUTS'} for texexpand .
For A:
Looking inside Override.pm the calls for 'os2' use a syntax:
$orig_cwd = getcwd;
Should this be: getcwd() or &getcwd() or &getcwd ?
given that there is a subroutine definition: sub getcwd {...
within the same module.
Which are valid syntax ? Which ones should be identical ?
...using use Cwd ? ...using use POSIX ?
I don't have any machines running OS/2 so cannot test that case.
I'll make whatever edits are needed but someone has to tell
me precisely what is required.
The default Unix version uses &getcwd() .
Does this cause anyone any trouble ?
If so, find an alternative that works
and tell me the value returned by $^O or $OSNAME .
> > Fred> portable and simplest fix. Is there a platform for which
> > Fred> Cwd::getcwd() isn't a working version of getcwd()?
> >
> > Yup, at least mine :-(
Please test the 4 different syntax variants:
getcwd &getcwd getcwd() &getcwd()
with each of the modules Cwd and POSIX .
One more comment:
Camel Book (2nd ed.) p387 says that cwd() is the safest way
to get the current working directory.
Should this replace getcwd() everywhere ?
For B.
Currently $TEXINPUTS is not even known within texexpand !!
(at least not on my system) and it isn't used anywhere.
Instead it used $ENV{'TEXINPUTS'} which I think is wrong.
I've tested a version with a -texinputs switch that allows
the latex2html script to pass the value of $TEXINPUTS to texexpand .
However this also requires a re-ordering of some code within texexpand .
For C.
The environment variable TEXINPUTS is intended for LaTeX and dvips etc.
to find files that they need. IMHO it should *not* be used by LaTeX2HTML
to find \input or \include files.
Reason:
It may result in files withing the TeX/LaTeX/texmf hierarchy
being matched, and erroneously included as part of a LaTeX2HTML job.
(BTW, note that when using Web2C it is best that TEXINPUTS does *not*
include any directories within the texmf hierarchy,
for these are found using a different mechanism.
Thus it is safe, but IMHO still conceptually wrong,
to use TEXINPUTS this way with LaTeX2HTML.)
Instead those directories to be searched automatically for commonly-used
input-files should be specified using the $TEXINPUTS variable.
This requires a mechanism for this to be used within texexpand
such as I suggested above for B.
Of course these directories may be needed by LaTeX when running images.tex
so the value of $ENV{'TEXINPUTS'} may still need to be adjusted locally,
prior to image-generation. There should be *no other reason*
why LaTeX2HTML uses $ENV{'TEXINPUTS'} at all.
Comments please.
I won't commit any changes to texexpand until favourable responses
indicate that such changes should indeed be made.
> On a related note, l2h doesn't search for the "main" file along
>$TEXINPUTS; is there a reason for that? I'm having to give both the
>path *and .tex extension* to use a main document file located along
>$TEXINPUTS.
OK, I see what you mean.
LaTeX can find the main document file not in the current directory,
so why not LaTeX2HTML ?
Currently the call to texexpand from latex2html gives a full path
to the main document file. So should we pass :
1. the filename only --- let texexpand find the full path
OR
2. the full path still, but with latex2html having determined this.
If you have strong views on these issues, please respond ASAP.
All the best,
Ross Moore
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Ross Moore email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Mathematics Department phone: +612 9850 8955
Macquarie University fax: +612 9850 8114
Sydney, NSW 2109 office: E7A-419
Australia WWW: http://www-math.mpce.mq.edu.au/~ross/
***************************
for the best in (La)TeX-nical typesetting and Web page production
join the TeX Users Group (TUG) --- browse at http://www.tug.org
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
