>|>... I wouldn't think that Windows users would >|>have any interest in constructing mtxdoc.pdf from scratch. >| >|I've been responsible for creating extensive revisions of musixdoc, >|which is >|a more complex document than mtxdoc, and I did all the work in >|Windows. So I >|have more than a passing interest in learning as much as I can about the >|process. And one thing I've learned is that the process can be simpler and >|the files required much less numerous if you just embed the musical >|examples >|in the document, much less breaking individual examples into more than one >|file each.
Don: I wasn't thinking of you as the typical "Windows user". If you just want to learn about how Dirk sets up his compilation, that's fine. But you might want to ask Dirk why he set it up the way he did. >|>And if this is considered important for some reason, a batch file >|>isn't the right way to do it. >| >|I'm puzzled why you would say that, partly because I don't think you >|mean "Why waste the effort on writing a batch script if you're only >|going to do the compilation once or twice". The response by David >|seems to show how to fill in the pieces. The problem with a batch script is that, like a Makefile, it's platform dependent. Instead of trying to emulate the Makefile in Windows, we should be replacing it by a platform-independent script in Lua. (This is similar to what's been done with musixflx: we no longer need to compile separate binaries for Window, Macs, Linux, Solaris, etc. because musixflx.lua will work everywhere.) I don't think every mtx user will want to re-build mtxdoc.pdf for themselves so this isn't high priority. And it's really Dirk's problem, because it's his document. Bob ------------------------------- [email protected] mailing list If you want to unsubscribe or look at the archives, go to http://tug.org/mailman/listinfo/tex-music
