On Tue, Apr 20, 2021 at 02:13:12PM +0100, Joseph Wright wrote: > > >>The PDF level > > > >>does have some impact on output features but in a simply 'Sorry, not doable' > >>sense. Note that XeTeX uses XDV, which is a version of DVI dedicated to > >>this engine. It's not necessary to test the DVI version at the macro level: > >>what's important is for example which method to include imagines, which uses > >>an engine test. > >> > >>>\outfmtset: setting the output format, that shall be amongst the formats > >>> supported. If not, it returns an error and set the output format to > >>> the default one. Shall be set before \shipout and errors if used > >>> after output has started. > >>> > >>>\outfmt: a token identifying the current output format. > >> > >>See above: data in the same format as other engines is strongly preferred. > > > >Well, since there is no real consensus and these are not amongst the > >required---and with the identification of the engine, one could \input > >ad hoc macros---I will for now stick to my proposal. > > Currently we can do something like > > \catcode`\@=11 > \ifdefined\pdfoutput > \let\pdf@output\pdfoutput > \else > \ifdefined\outputmode > \let\pdf@output\outputmode > \else > \newcount\pdf@output > \fi > \fi > > then can use \pdf@output as a one-shot to know if we are in PDF or DVI mode, > and if we are using pdfTeX/LuaTeX we can also set it. With a token-based > indicator, we can of course set up something similar but it gets longer. > However, this is of course your call, and as you are not making PDF, it's > not so important (it's most useful for pdfTeX and LuaTeX where both DVI and > PDF are possible). > Well, I will see during implementation. I want it to be fairly stable on the primitives side. Best, -- Thierry Laronde <tlaronde +AT+ polynum +dot+ com> http://www.kergis.com/ http://kertex.kergis.com/ http://www.sbfa.fr/ Key fingerprint = 0FF7 E906 FBAF FE95 FD89 250D 52B1 AE95 6006 F40C