At 06:27 PM 7/14/2001 +0200, Eckhart Guth�hrlein wrote:
>At 12:57 14.07.2001 +0200, you wrote:
>>Eckhart Guth�hrlein wrote:
>> >
>> > But what about having texexec/perl calculate the checksums, writing
>> them to
>> > an auxiliary file, and tex just reading them? And in any case, one can be
>> > sure that the mp code will not change during the same call to texexec (or
>> > can there be exceptions?), so that if, say, three tex runs are necessary,
>> > one run of mp would be sufficient. Setting some switch may be
>> sufficient to
>> > achieve this.
>>
>>It *can* change with a texexec, imagine using the page number in the MP
>>code, for example. More serious problem: even if texexec calculates the
>>checksum, then how would the TeX macro code know its status without
>>first
>>calculating a checksum itself? It needs to compare two checksums: one
>>from
>>this run against the one from the previous run.
>
>So, why not keeping two checksums in the aux file? No, no, all right, I
>admit that I did not think beyond my simple applications. Metapost is
>actually quite fast, so I must agree with yoz that the additional gain of
>speed (maybe even not...) is probably not worth the trouble. And it is
>likely that there will be more problems than positive effects and than I
>can imagine... So let's forget about it, it was just an idea, coming up
>because my - until recently - preferred method texexec --automprun does
>not work as expected at the moment (see the other thread).
much faster processing can be achieved with mp as dll and kpsea as server
app [only have file base in mem once], which is something fptex wizard
fabrice popineau is thinking/working about/on.
Hans
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hans Hagen | PRAGMA ADE | [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Ridderstraat 27 | 8061 GH Hasselt | The Netherlands
tel: +31 (0)38 477 53 69 | fax: +31 (0)38 477 53 74 | www.pragma-ade.com
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
