[TeX-Music] PMX upgrade philosophy
Hiroaki Morimoto has been working on a new version of MusiXTeX that will
allow 24 instruments and correspondingly more slurs, beams, etc. I have also
been working to make PMX compatible with the greatly expanded MusiXTeX
capacity. I would like a little feedback to help me decide whether to
include a certain option in PMX.
The new MusiXTeX will seamlessly process virtually all "old" MusiXTeX files
when run with any old version of TeX. However, to allow more than 12
instruments, the command \setmaxinstruments{24} will have to be entered, and
the file will have to be processed with eTeX.
The question before me is whether to have PMX once and for all issue
\setmaxinstruments{24}, thereby requiring all new PMX-generated TeX files to
be processed with eTeX. The alternative is to build into PMX a user option
to select whether to produce an "old" or "new" MusiXTeX file. Right now I'm
leaning strongly toward making the new PMX produce only "new" files, ones
that require the new musixtex.tex and eTeX, and I intend to follow that
course unless I hear any convincing arguments why I should spend the extra
effort to try to make the new PMX capable of producing "old" MusiXTeX files
as an option. In any event the current version of PMX will remain available
as long as there is a host for the software part of WIMA.
--Don Simons
___
tex-mu...@icking-music-archive.org mailing list
If you want to unsubscribe or look at the archives, go to
http://mailman.nfit.au.dk/mailman/listinfo/icking-music-archive.org-tex-music
Re: [TeX-Music] PMX upgrade philosophy
Don Simons skryf:
>
> The question before me is whether to have PMX once and for all issue
> \setmaxinstruments{24}, thereby requiring all new PMX-generated TeX files to
> be processed with eTeX.
Under TeTeX and maybe MikTeX (I wouldn't know) that may have been
true, although I think there used to be a file texmf.cfg that you
could edit to make the sizes bigger.
Under TeXLive tex, etex, pdftex and pdfetex are all the same program.
I don't think one easily runs into size limits. The only difference
between tex and etex is that the latter enables certain extensions.
But can't the pmxa part of pmxab count how many instruments are
actually needed, and the pmxb part issue \setmaxinstruments with
that precise number?
Dirk
___
tex-mu...@icking-music-archive.org mailing list
If you want to unsubscribe or look at the archives, go to
http://mailman.nfit.au.dk/mailman/listinfo/icking-music-archive.org-tex-music
Re: [TeX-Music] PMX upgrade philosophy
Wed, 23 Jun 2010, Don Simons wrote: Date: Wed, 23 Jun 2010 21:46:45 -0700 (cut) Right now I'm leaning strongly toward making the new PMX produce only "new" files, ones that require the new musixtex.tex and eTeX, and I intend to follow that course unless I hear any convincing arguments why I should spend the extra effort to try to make the new PMX capable of producing "old" MusiXTeX files as an option. In any event the current version of PMX will remain available as long as there is a host for the software part of WIMA. --Don Simons 4 comments: (1) the way the TeX development is going, eTeX is just about to become the standard (default) any day now. Since, to my knowledge, there is NOTHING that will run with old (i.e. restricted) TeX, but not with eTeX, there is no longer any sensible reason to prefer "old" TeX to eTeX, (2) the argument regarding MusixTeX is slightly less convincing, because installing the new MusixTeX, if you have the "old" MusixTeX up and running, involves some work (minor IMHO, considering the advantages). (3) So my vote is clearly: Don, go ahead with letting PMX use the new MusixeX only! I don't see a reason to add an option to use the "old" MusixTeX, as long as one keeps the "old" PMX in one's archive (which is prudent procedure anyway). (4) (side remark): MikTeX users will want to make sure that the current distribution(s), 2.8 (2.7), run eTeX by default. It seems to me that is indeed the case; but the log file(s) do not say so explicitly. Some months ago, I sent an email to the mikTeX users' list asking for confirmation, but never received an answer. Does anybody here know this more precisely? ccn. -- . Prof.Dr. Cornelius C. Noack Phones: Inst. f. Theor. Physik FB 1 office : +49 (421) 218-2427 Universit"at Bremen secretary: -2422 Otto-Hahn-Allee Fax : -4869 D - 28334 Bremen home : +49 (421) 34 22 36 Fax: 346 7872 E-mail: noack at itp.uni-bremen.de or ccnoack at mailaps.org WWW-page: www.itp.uni-bremen.de/~noack . ___ tex-mu...@icking-music-archive.org mailing list If you want to unsubscribe or look at the archives, go to http://mailman.nfit.au.dk/mailman/listinfo/icking-music-archive.org-tex-music
Re: [TeX-Music] PMX upgrade philosophy
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Am 24.06.2010 13:33, schrieb Dirk Laurie:
> Don Simons skryf:
>>
>> The question before me is whether to have PMX once and for all issue
>> \setmaxinstruments{24}, thereby requiring all new PMX-generated TeX files to
>> be processed with eTeX.
> But can't the pmxa part of pmxab count how many instruments are
> actually needed, and the pmxb part issue \setmaxinstruments with
> that precise number?
Or would it be possible to check for the TeX version and insert
\setmaxinstruments{24} only if eTeX is detected?
Bodo
-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Version: GnuPG v1.4.10 (GNU/Linux)
iEYEARECAAYFAkwjT9EACgkQnMz9fgzDSqeN9QCggitOBcZHusWGAwZsMN+6eA6W
pk4An3DJKRlBaTnPPT0EhvLIUl9b3Me0
=AlX7
-END PGP SIGNATURE-
___
tex-mu...@icking-music-archive.org mailing list
If you want to unsubscribe or look at the archives, go to
http://mailman.nfit.au.dk/mailman/listinfo/icking-music-archive.org-tex-music
Re: [TeX-Music] PMX upgrade philosophy
On Thu, Jun 24, 2010 at 02:30:09PM +0200, Bodo Meissner wrote:
>
> Or would it be possible to check for the TeX version and insert
> \setmaxinstruments{24} only if eTeX is detected?
>
Well, this is actually trivial.
\ifx\undefined\eTeXversion\setmaxinstruments{12}
\else\setmaxinstruments{24} \fi
Even better: pmxa counts the number of instruments and pmxb inserts
TeX code to give an error message if there are more than 12 and
eTeX is not detected.
Thanks for the idea, Bodo!
Dirk
___
tex-mu...@icking-music-archive.org mailing list
If you want to unsubscribe or look at the archives, go to
http://mailman.nfit.au.dk/mailman/listinfo/icking-music-archive.org-tex-music
Re: [TeX-Music] PMX upgrade philosophy
Well, if eTeX isn't detected (deTeXted?) and you \setmaxinstruments >12, I
think you'll get a TeX error anyhow. But I agree it would be more user
friendly to print out a cleaner, more explicit message. So I guess PMX
should do this:
write(11,'(a19,i2,a2))'\setmaxinstruments{',nv,'}%'
if (nv .gt. 12) write(11,'(a)')'\ifx\undefined\eTeXversion [something] \fi'
where [something] prints out a message like say 'You must use eTeX if you
have more than 12 instrumnets', and then stops the TeX'ing. Or maybe
[something] should even pause the TeX'ing in case this is being run from
within a batch file. Could one of the TeXperts tell me what [something] is?
PMX should probably also write '\input musixmad' if nv<13
--Don
>-Original Message-
>From: icking-music-archive.org-tex-music-boun...@mailman.nfit.au.dk
>[mailto:icking-music-archive.org-tex-music-boun...@mailman.nfit.au.dk]
>On Behalf Of Dirk Laurie
>Sent: Thursday, June 24, 2010 8:24 AM
>To: Werner Icking Music Archive
>Subject: Re: [TeX-Music] PMX upgrade philosophy
>
>On Thu, Jun 24, 2010 at 02:30:09PM +0200, Bodo Meissner wrote:
>>
>> Or would it be possible to check for the TeX version and insert
>> \setmaxinstruments{24} only if eTeX is detected?
>>
>Well, this is actually trivial.
>
>\ifx\undefined\eTeXversion\setmaxinstruments{12}
>\else\setmaxinstruments{24} \fi
>
>Even better: pmxa counts the number of instruments and pmxb inserts
>TeX code to give an error message if there are more than 12 and
>eTeX is not detected.
>
>Thanks for the idea, Bodo!
>
>Dirk
>
>___
>tex-mu...@icking-music-archive.org mailing list
>If you want to unsubscribe or look at the archives, go to
>http://mailman.nfit.au.dk/mailman/listinfo/icking-music-archive.org-tex-
>music
___
tex-mu...@icking-music-archive.org mailing list
If you want to unsubscribe or look at the archives, go to
http://mailman.nfit.au.dk/mailman/listinfo/icking-music-archive.org-tex-music
Re: [TeX-Music] PMX upgrade philosophy
There have been some interesting suggestions and in my last posting I even
got sucked a bit into "gee whiz yeah we can do that" mode. But I still
haven't seen any convincing arguments about why the next version of PMX
shouldn't REQUIRE eTeX and the expanded MusiXTeX. (Cornelius stated that
"installing the new MusiXTeX involves some work", and that's true if simply
replacing 5 files counts as work). I think what it really comes down to is
whether there are any users with computers that are too small to handle the
increased capacity. I can't imagine there are, but if you're out there,
please speak up, and if there are any other good reasons for continuing to
play "small ball" I'd really like to hear them.
--Don Simons
>-Original Message-
>From: icking-music-archive.org-tex-music-boun...@mailman.nfit.au.dk
>[mailto:icking-music-archive.org-tex-music-boun...@mailman.nfit.au.dk]
>On Behalf Of Don Simons
>Sent: Wednesday, June 23, 2010 9:47 PM
>To: 'Werner Icking Music Archive'
>Subject: [TeX-Music] PMX upgrade philosophy
>
>Hiroaki Morimoto has been working on a new version of MusiXTeX that will
>allow 24 instruments and correspondingly more slurs, beams, etc. I have
>also
>been working to make PMX compatible with the greatly expanded MusiXTeX
>capacity. I would like a little feedback to help me decide whether to
>include a certain option in PMX.
>
>The new MusiXTeX will seamlessly process virtually all "old" MusiXTeX
>files
>when run with any old version of TeX. However, to allow more than 12
>instruments, the command \setmaxinstruments{24} will have to be entered,
>and
>the file will have to be processed with eTeX.
>
>The question before me is whether to have PMX once and for all issue
>\setmaxinstruments{24}, thereby requiring all new PMX-generated TeX
>files to
>be processed with eTeX. The alternative is to build into PMX a user
>option
>to select whether to produce an "old" or "new" MusiXTeX file. Right now
>I'm
>leaning strongly toward making the new PMX produce only "new" files,
>ones
>that require the new musixtex.tex and eTeX, and I intend to follow that
>course unless I hear any convincing arguments why I should spend the
>extra
>effort to try to make the new PMX capable of producing "old" MusiXTeX
>files
>as an option. In any event the current version of PMX will remain
>available
>as long as there is a host for the software part of WIMA.
>
>--Don Simons
>
>
>
>
>
>___
>tex-mu...@icking-music-archive.org mailing list
>If you want to unsubscribe or look at the archives, go to
>http://mailman.nfit.au.dk/mailman/listinfo/icking-music-archive.org-tex-
>music
___
tex-mu...@icking-music-archive.org mailing list
If you want to unsubscribe or look at the archives, go to
http://mailman.nfit.au.dk/mailman/listinfo/icking-music-archive.org-tex-music
Re: [TeX-Music] PMX upgrade philosophy
Don Simons wrote:
> There have been some interesting suggestions and in my last posting I even got
> sucked a bit into "gee whiz yeah we can do that" mode. But I still haven't
> seen
> any convincing arguments about why the next version of PMX shouldn't REQUIRE
> eTeX and the expanded MusiXTeX. (Cornelius stated that "installing the new
> MusiXTeX involves some work", and that's true if simply replacing 5 files
> counts
> as work). I think what it really comes down to is whether there are any users
> with computers that are too small to handle the increased capacity. I can't
> imagine there are, but if you're out there, please speak up, and if there are
> any other good reasons for continuing to play "small ball" I'd really like to
> hear them.
The LaTeX team (or perhaps it's the LaTeX3 team, I can't remember) changed the
requirement for the default TeX engine to be e-TeX a few years ago (at that
point the idea was that the kernel would continue to use vanilla TeX only but
that the requirement for e-TeX would assist package authors). I agree that it
seems perfectly reasonable to assume that anyone who wants to stay up-to-date
with TeX is now using a distro that has e-TeX - I hope anyone still using a
machine on a regular basis that can't run e-TeX has a soldering iron and a good
supply of spare diodes and capacitors 'cos those machines' motherboards aren't
gonna work for much longer! At least 286/386/486 machines are slow enough that
silicon drift in the CPU isn't an issue :o)
However, regardless of whether you include eTeX or not, you must have code to
detect its presence and display a clean error message because in all
distributions there is a difference between running tex and etex even though
there is no difference between running pdftex and pdfetex:
\ifx\undefined\eTeXversion
\errhelp={Consult your Local Guide for details on using e-TeX}
\loop
\errmessage{Sources compiled with PMX require e-TeX}
\iftrue
\repeat
\fi
The inclusion of the \loop depends on whether you want the user to be able to
press enter to ignore the error (and presumably just be stopped by another
error further down the input file)
David
___
tex-mu...@icking-music-archive.org mailing list
If you want to unsubscribe or look at the archives, go to
http://mailman.nfit.au.dk/mailman/listinfo/icking-music-archive.org-tex-music
Re: [TeX-Music] PMX upgrade philosophy
Thanks, David. With the code you suggested, running with tex produces
==
C:\DOCUME~1\Don\MYDOCU~1\PMX\musixtex115>tex bigjunq
This is TeX, Version 3.141592 (MiKTeX 2.6)
(bigjunq.tex (musixtex.tex
MusiXTeX(c) T.115-beta2 <24 June 2010>
maxinstruments=6 max128beams=6 maxgroups=3 maxslurs=6 maxtrills=6
maxoctlines=6)
("C:\Documents and Settings\All Users\Application
Data\MiKTeX\2.6\tex\generic\p
mx\pmx.tex"
PMX, a Preprocessor for MusiXTeX, Version 2.502a <29 March 04>
)
! Sources compiled with PMX require e-TeX.
\body ...{Sources compiled with PMX require e-TeX}
\iftrue
\iterate ->\body
\let \next \iterate \else \let \next \relax \fi \next
l.13 \repeat
?
==
which I'm afraid is pretty ugly. If I leave out the loop and the repeat, I
get
==
C:\DOCUME~1\Don\MYDOCU~1\PMX\musixtex115>tex bigjunq
This is TeX, Version 3.141592 (MiKTeX 2.6)
(bigjunq.tex (musixtex.tex
MusiXTeX(c) T.115-beta2 <24 June 2010>
maxinstruments=6 max128beams=6 maxgroups=3 maxslurs=6 maxtrills=6
maxoctlines=6)
("C:\Documents and Settings\All Users\Application
Data\MiKTeX\2.6\tex\generic\p
mx\pmx.tex"
PMX, a Preprocessor for MusiXTeX, Version 2.502a <29 March 04>
)
! Sources compiled with PMX require e-TeX.
l.11 ...e{Sources compiled with PMX require e-TeX}
?
==
which is much closer to what I'd prefer, but still not quite it. It's
probably good that it pauses, so if running from a batch script the operator
would know the error had occurred. But can I (1) just have the message
printed once, and (2) precede the message with a blank line?
--Don
>-Original Message-
>From: icking-music-archive.org-tex-music-boun...@mailman.nfit.au.dk
>[mailto:icking-music-archive.org-tex-music-boun...@mailman.nfit.au.dk]
>On Behalf Of David Allsopp
>Sent: Thursday, June 24, 2010 11:34 PM
>To: Werner Icking Music Archive
>Subject: Re: [TeX-Music] PMX upgrade philosophy
>
>Don Simons wrote:
>> There have been some interesting suggestions and in my last posting I
>even got
>> sucked a bit into "gee whiz yeah we can do that" mode. But I still
>haven't seen
>> any convincing arguments about why the next version of PMX shouldn't
>REQUIRE
>> eTeX and the expanded MusiXTeX. (Cornelius stated that "installing the
>new
>> MusiXTeX involves some work", and that's true if simply replacing 5
>files counts
>> as work). I think what it really comes down to is whether there are
>any users
>> with computers that are too small to handle the increased capacity. I
>can't
>> imagine there are, but if you're out there, please speak up, and if
>there are
>> any other good reasons for continuing to play "small ball" I'd really
>like to hear them.
>
>The LaTeX team (or perhaps it's the LaTeX3 team, I can't remember)
>changed the requirement for the default TeX engine to be e-TeX a few
>years ago (at that point the idea was that the kernel would continue to
>use vanilla TeX only but that the requirement for e-TeX would assist
>package authors). I agree that it seems perfectly reasonable to assume
>that anyone who wants to stay up-to-date with TeX is now using a distro
>that has e-TeX - I hope anyone still using a machine on a regular basis
>that can't run e-TeX has a soldering iron and a good supply of spare
>diodes and capacitors 'cos those machines' motherboards aren't gonna
>work for much longer! At least 286/386/486 machines are slow enough that
>silicon drift in the CPU isn't an issue :o)
>
>However, regardless of whether you include eTeX or not, you must have
>code to detect its presence and display a clean error message because in
>all distributions there is a difference between running tex and etex
>even though there is no difference between running pdftex and pdfetex:
>
>\ifx\undefined\eTeXversion
> \errhelp={Consult your Local Guide for details on using e-TeX}
> \loop
>\errmessage{Sources compiled with PMX require e-TeX}
> \iftrue
> \repeat
>\fi
>
>The inclusion of the \loop depends on whether you want the user to be
>able to press enter to ignore the error (and presumably just be stopped
>by another error further down the input file)
>
>
>David
>
>___
>tex-mu...@icking-music-archive.org mailing list
>If you want to unsubscribe or look at the archives, go to
>http://mailman.nfit.au.dk/mailman/listinfo/icking-music-archive.org-tex-
>music
___
tex-mu...@icking-music-archive.org mailing list
If you want to unsubscribe or look at the archives, go to
http://mailman.nfit.au.dk/mailman/listinfo/icking-music-archive.org-tex-music
Re: [TeX-Music] PMX upgrade philosophy
Don Simons wrote:
> Thanks, David. With the code you suggested, running with tex produces
>
> ==
> C:\DOCUME~1\Don\MYDOCU~1\PMX\musixtex115>tex bigjunq This is TeX, Version
> 3.141592 (MiKTeX 2.6) (bigjunq.tex (musixtex.tex
> MusiXTeX(c) T.115-beta2 <24 June 2010>
> maxinstruments=6 max128beams=6 maxgroups=3 maxslurs=6 maxtrills=6
> maxoctlines=6)
> ("C:\Documents and Settings\All Users\Application
> Data\MiKTeX\2.6\tex\generic\p mx\pmx.tex"
> PMX, a Preprocessor for MusiXTeX, Version 2.502a <29 March 04>
> )
> ! Sources compiled with PMX require e-TeX.
> \body ...{Sources compiled with PMX require e-TeX}
>\iftrue \iterate -
> >\body
> \let \next \iterate \else \let \next \relax \fi \next
> l.13 \repeat
>
> ?
> ==
>
> which I'm afraid is pretty ugly. If I leave out the loop and the repeat, I
> get
>
> ==
> C:\DOCUME~1\Don\MYDOCU~1\PMX\musixtex115>tex bigjunq This is TeX, Version
> 3.141592 (MiKTeX 2.6) (bigjunq.tex (musixtex.tex
> MusiXTeX(c) T.115-beta2 <24 June 2010>
> maxinstruments=6 max128beams=6 maxgroups=3 maxslurs=6 maxtrills=6
> maxoctlines=6)
> ("C:\Documents and Settings\All Users\Application
> Data\MiKTeX\2.6\tex\generic\p mx\pmx.tex"
> PMX, a Preprocessor for MusiXTeX, Version 2.502a <29 March 04>
> )
> ! Sources compiled with PMX require e-TeX.
> l.11 ...e{Sources compiled with PMX require e-TeX}
>
> ?
> ==
>
> which is much closer to what I'd prefer, but still not quite it. It's
> probably good that it pauses, so if running from a batch script the
> operator would know the error had occurred. But can I (1) just have the
> message printed once, and (2) precede the message with a blank line?
Personally I wouldn't worry about the blank line, but \immediate\write16{} will
add that for you. Getting rid of the duplicate error message is something I did
in in a massively over-engineered piece of TeX for database processing a few
years ago... although the code I had allowed you to define error messages using
a key (so you could say \...@error{etex}{sources ...}{Consult ...} then later
\error{etex}, for example) that's much more than you'd want here so I
simplified it to give:
\ifx\undefined\eTeXversion
\def\displayerror{\errmessage{\the\errormessage}}
\toksdef\errormessage=0
\def\etexerror{%
\errhelp={Consult your Local Guide for details on using e-TeX}%
\errorcontextlines=-1
\escapechar=-1
\errormessage={Sources compiled with PMX require e-TeX}%
\loop
\displayerror
\iftrue
\errormessage={Type X to quit and go and fix the problem}%
\errhelp={No, really - do just that. There's nothing else you can do
here.}%
\repeat}
\immediate\write16{}
\etexerror
\fi
On the console that gives
This is TeX, Version 3.1415926 (MiKTeX 2.8)
(D:\PMX.tex
! Sources compiled with PMX require e-TeX.
displayerror ->errmessage {the errormessage }
l.16 \etexerror
?
Which I is about as good as you can make it I think.
David
___
tex-mu...@icking-music-archive.org mailing list
If you want to unsubscribe or look at the archives, go to
http://mailman.nfit.au.dk/mailman/listinfo/icking-music-archive.org-tex-music
