[tex-live] last weekend changes
karl at freefriends.org
Sat Mar 27 19:09:53 CET 2004
That way, people who just want to run broken code can easily insert
Here is my view: I feel it is imperative that the MANY existing
documents that test for pdf continue run unchanged.
And I don't agree with the characterization of them as "broken", if
that's what you're saying was broken. Testing \ifx\pdfoutput\undefined
*was* (and remains!) an absolutely standard practice.
I am not sure if we should provide an automatic feature that hides all
pdftex primitives if people use e.g. latex.
What is wrong with it? It provides transparent compatibility. I don't
understand why you think it is bad.
to provide a TeX macro package that sets \pdfoutput to 0 and then sets
all possibly relevant control sequences to \undefined.
\pdfoutput is one of those control sequences (the most important one, in
fact) to be undefined. Setting it to 0 is not sufficient. That's what
the whole discussion is about.
I would rather not use pdfetex than break old documents, if you prefer
that, but I see no reason why we can't accomplish both goals, with
Staszek's basic suggestion: undefine all the pdf primitives in the
latex.ini file (and others). Yes, it is annoying for us. Better some
annoyance for us than to break existing documents!
Hans' suggestion of a new primitive \pdfstate (by whatever name) that
can be switched back and forth would be even better. I just don't know
how quickly it can be implemented. If it is not available, once again,
I feel it is crucial that existing documents continue to work
*unchanged*, one way or another. There are zillions upon zillions of them.
More information about the tex-live