-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On Sunday, 24. March 2002 01:10, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > Yes, I'd thought of that...but it's not all that simple. I think the > biggest hassle is writing code to check to see if the (la)tex file > compiled properly... Guess I was hoping that someone had done it already > > However, I thought I'd read of some version of tex which did produce ps > files directly. Maybe it's a commercial version or something. > It shouldn't be that hard to implement that. For your special case you have to run tex/latex in batch mode of course. You could pipe the stderr to a grep filter that searches for errors.
On the other hand if you aren't sure if there are errors in your tex you should enter a debug -- view cycle without producing the PS ! As long as the tex file isn't as you like it, xdvi is much better viewer than GV or any other postscript thing, since you can handle different page sizes in DVI files much more accurate than with gv or postscript streams, and its many many many times faster !! As far as PDF is concerned, if you really have a native PS printer I cannot say anything about it but if you pipe your files through ghostscript to produce HP-PCL or Epson or some other printer format you are on the safer side, since ghostscript is quite good in handling PDF files, (as far as I know, blame me if I'm wrong). PDF files can also be viewed by gv or similar programs that use ghostscript to process input files. Though you lack some PDF specials, but ready to print files look quite good through gv, although I prefer xpdf. CU INGO -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.0.6 (GNU/Linux) Comment: For info see http://www.gnupg.org iD8DBQE8nTF2y6Pb53AsRKkRAr49AJ91yXWaJInsAtCMcNFl0WUfzxla7QCfY4l5 4BxyNGQSDLkXvH5GhEavZVE= =Jmci -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
