Closed vlasakm closed 3 years ago
All mentioned files are in the TEXINPUT pool. I don't see advantages. The tree needn't to be more complicated, IMHO.
I also forgot bib-X
files.
My motivation:
base
to scroll through. Most are font files.hisyntax-X
, bib-X
and f-X
files are not strictly part of the format, they are loaded at run time and follow certain namning conventions. They are distinct, because users can create their own variants with same names without modifying the format itself.Everything under $TEXMF/tex/optex
is in TEXINPUT, so there also aren't any disadvantages.
I dislike too bushy trees. My current directory includes testing files for OpTeX and single symlink to the base/
of OpTeX which is named base
. I am doing (with Tab completion, of course):
joe base/f-lmfonts.opm
joe base/fonts-select.opm
joe base/optex.ini
grep something base/*
etc.
My work will be more complicated if there is more than single point where all TEXINPUT files for OpTeX are. This is disadvantage of your idea from my point of view.
OK, maybe a comprise with optex/base/hisyntax
, etc. could be made. Otherwise feel free to close the issue, it was just an idea.
I know that the font family files are part of the "base", but maybe they would deserve a separate directory. There are alot of them and they are not really preloaded, but loaded on demand at runtime.
Not sure about the name, though.
families
orfontfamilies
orfonts
like incsplain
? Shouldfams-ini.opm
be moved too, as its just the index of them?EDIT: Maybe the same thing for
hisyntax
?