On 03/07/2020 16:26, Philip Taylor wrote:
Jonathan Kew wrote:
For your example, I was going to suggest that a simpler solution than
"make" ought to work: all it requires is a two-line batch file or
shell script (or similar: tools like Lua or Python or Perl would be
fine) that performs the two xetex runs you need. Then you'd call that
script or batch file as your "engine" in TeXworks, instead of calling
xetex directly.
But I see that you have been offered a solution anyway now, basically
using (xe)tex as both the scripting language (to call another
instance of itself) and as the typesetting process. I don't normally
wield tex in that way, as I find other scripting languages easier and
more flexible, but it should indeed work.
As for closing the output PDF mid-job, and allowing you to start a
new one: I'm not sure how I feel about that. Is tex the right
language to be using to define and control complex multi-stage
processes? While this *can* be done (as the \write18 solution
demonstrates for a simple case), I tend to think it's the wrong tool
for the job. There are languages that are much more amenable to
manipulating files and managing pipelines of processes; my
inclination would be to use one of those, with (xe)tex being called
as required to perform individual steps, rather than using tex as the
overall control language.
Thank you for your comments, Jonathan, which are much appreciated.
While I fully appreciate that [Xe]TeX is not a tool for "manipulating
files and managing pipelines of processe", I nonetheless think that
the ability to generate two or more distinct PDFs in a single run
might be of some benefit. May I ask if you would agree that that
might be the case, without, of course, any committment on your part to
implementing such a feature ?
I would agree that it *might* be the case; I am at the moment some way
from being convinced that it *is* the case.
Many potential use-cases, I think, can be equally well addressed by
multiple TeX invocations under the control of a higher-level script or
tool of some kind. Perhaps there are compelling examples where this
would not be the case, but I'm not aware of them at the moment.
JK
