Closed GoogleCodeExporter closed 9 years ago
Do you have a pointer to some documentation on this feature? I have never
heard of it before, and I want to get it right if I do add support for it.
Original comment by shiblon
on 20 Dec 2010 at 6:10
Once I get some information, I'll look further into this. I have never heard
of the %&[preamble out dir] syntax. So, I await any pointers you may have to
relevant documentation.
Original comment by shiblon
on 4 Jan 2011 at 4:01
OK, I have found some more information. This is called a "format" file, and is
a feature of latex that I have never seen before. It looks like if you do
%&name
Then run latex with the -ini parameter, it builds name.fmt, which is then
included.
So, initial thoughts are that we would have to make a dynamic dependency in the
.d file based on what is found after %& (no spaces). That would cause us to
build the appropriate .fmt file if needed, and then the input would work file,
theoretically.
I need to look at this in more detail, but for now I'll wait for you to confirm
that this is, in fact, how it works.
Original comment by shiblon
on 4 Jan 2011 at 4:07
http://magic.aladdin.cs.cmu.edu/2007/11/02/precompiled-preamble-for-latex/
This has some good info, but not enough to put it into the makefile. I'll have
to spend some time with this feature to see what it does to various files
(especially .aux and .fmt files)
Original comment by shiblon
on 4 Jan 2011 at 4:12
Sorry for the late answer. So far I am unable to find more documentation to it
as well, but your comment 3 sounds very descriptive for my use. The closest
I've gotten is http://man.he.net/man1/pdflatex
Original comment by ber...@gmail.com
on 2 Feb 2011 at 11:44
Wow, this really languished in my inbox for a while. My apologies.
Give the attached a whirl and let me know how it works for you.
Original comment by shib...@google.com
on 22 Apr 2011 at 3:44
Attachments:
The revision with diffs in it is r4f885d794e29.
Original comment by shiblon
on 22 Apr 2011 at 3:45
Hello
I'm in the end of my thesis work right now, so I havn't tested this yet.
When I get to it, should I then test with the version you link to here, or just
take the newest from the download page?
Original comment by ber...@gmail.com
on 20 May 2011 at 9:17
Either way should be fine :-)
Original comment by shiblon
on 23 May 2011 at 3:07
Original issue reported on code.google.com by
ber...@gmail.com
on 17 Dec 2010 at 3:07