At 2018-04-24T10:03:16+02:00, Arthur Reutenauer wrote:
>> PS: Incidentally, what is the "-19:00" in date in the first identifier?
>> In my time zone, IST, I would have expected 2018-04-24T01:49:47+05:30.
>
> I remember noticing something strange in the date format when files
> were compiled after
At 2018-04-24T09:44:09+02:00, Hans Hagen wrote:
> fixed in beta but no beta soon ... in lpdf-ini.lua you can try to fix
> this
Thank you for the solution.
Raghu.
--
N. Raghavendra , http://www.retrotexts.net/
Harish-Chandra Research Institute, http://www.hri.res.in/
___
> On the other hand, with the 2017.11.14 version, the identifier in the
> output of `context --nodates' is just
>
> foo
The longer identifier is definitely better, but it should be possible
to make it predictable over successive runs.
> PS: Incidentally, what is the "-19:00" in date in the f
On 4/24/2018 6:28 AM, N. Raghavendra wrote:
At 2018-04-23T23:49:19+02:00, Arthur Reutenauer wrote:
it seems the identifier uses the time of compilation, when it should
probably use the time of last modification of the source file.
Yes, with the 2018.04.19 version, the identifier in the output
At 2018-04-23T23:49:19+02:00, Arthur Reutenauer wrote:
> it seems the identifier uses the time of compilation, when it should
> probably use the time of last modification of the source file.
Yes, with the 2018.04.19 version, the identifier in the output of
`context --nodates' includes the compila
Hi Raghu,
I can reproduce the problem you observe. Hans, it seems the
identifier uses the time of compilation, when it should probably use the
time of last modification of the source file.
Best,
Arthur
___
Sometime ago, I asked here about reproducible PDF output, and was told
about the --nodates option of context. It worked then, but doesn't seem
to be working now, with a recent version of context.
--
$ cat foo.tex
\starttext
Hel
