Print

Print


On 06/03/2011 17:18, Arno Trautmann wrote:
>>   $ latex3 --dvi --pdftex <file>
>>   $ latex3 --pdf --luatex <file>
> 
> I find this horrible. It would be easy if the standard engine would be
> luaTeX with pdf output and other machines could be used as pdflatex3 or
> similar.

I guess my problem is the number of combinations:

 - ???latex3 (pdfTeX + LaTeX3 format - but if you
   want to be able to alter the default engine then
   just "latex3" is out)
 - pdflatex3
 - xelatex3
 - lualatex3
 - dvilualatex3

For experienced users that is fine, but for inexperienced users it's not
so fine. (I guess I prefer to keep the engine, output type and format
separate.)

>> an so forth (with --xetex ignoring --dvi for the obvious reasons).  Does
>> a similar scheme make sense for a hypothetical 'latex2x'? (I'm going
>> with 'x' for 'extended', and also for 'like LaTeX2e, but clearly a bit
>> further along. Of course, there would need to be some defaults for the
>> above - I guess I'd favour pdfTeX in PDF mode at present.
> 
> For l2x (I like the name!), I'd stick with the names as they are.

Makes sense, I suppose, although in many ways I would like to at least
have the output mode separate from the name

  pdflatex2x	pdfTeX, PDF output
  xelatex2x	XeTeX, PDF output
  lualatex2x	LuaTeX, PDF output

with a --dvi(mode) switch

>> Second question: anything else that should be included that is not in
>> the combined 'release' material (expl3, xparse, xtemplate, xcoffins)?
>> These do load various bits and pieces (for example, graphicx), but I'd
>> like to at least add fixltx2e to the above.
> 
> As Philipp suggested, fontspec for luaTeX and XeTeX engines. Maybe even
> xltxtra for XeTeX and some lua packages for luaTeX? But that is no
> LaTeX3 stuff anymore 

Well, fixltx2e is not either, but I'd want to include it. As I've said,
we already load some support packages with LuaTeX at least.
-- 
Joseph Wright