X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["1576" "Tue" "21" "October" "1997" "22:38:10" "+0100" "Frank Mittelbach" "Frank.Mittelbach@UNI-MAINZ.DE" nil "34" "Re: Extended include" "^Date:" nil nil "10" nil "Extended include" nil nil nil] nil) Received: from listserv.gmd.de (listserv.gmd.de [192.88.97.1]) by mail.Uni-Mainz.DE (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id XAA08356 for ; Tue, 21 Oct 1997 23:48:16 +0200 (MET DST) Received: from lsv1.listserv.gmd.de by listserv.gmd.de (LSMTP for OpenVMS v1.1a) with SMTP id <8.41C12469@listserv.gmd.de>; Tue, 21 Oct 1997 23:48:12 +0200 Received: from RELAY.URZ.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE by RELAY.URZ.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE (LISTSERV-TCP/IP release 1.8b) with spool id 220024 for LATEX-L@RELAY.URZ.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE; Tue, 21 Oct 1997 23:48:04 +0200 Received: from kralle.zdv.Uni-Mainz.DE (kralle.zdv.Uni-Mainz.DE [134.93.8.158]) by relay.urz.uni-heidelberg.de (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id XAA23486 for ; Tue, 21 Oct 1997 23:48:03 +0200 (MET DST) Received: (from Ufrank@localhost) by kralle.zdv.Uni-Mainz.DE (8.8.5/8.8.5) id XAA18168 for LATEX-L@RELAY.URZ.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE; Tue, 21 Oct 1997 23:48:04 +0200 (MET DST) X-Authentication-Warning: kralle.zdv.Uni-Mainz.DE: Ufrank set sender to latex3 using -f Received: (from latex3@localhost) by frank.zdv.uni-mainz.de (8.6.9/8.6.9) id WAA00423; Tue, 21 Oct 1997 22:38:10 +0100 References: <971020150418.a6ec@vms.rhbnc.ac.uk> <199710201909.UAA17653@frank.zdv.uni-mainz.de> Message-ID: <199710212138.WAA00423@frank.zdv.uni-mainz.de> Reply-To: Mailing list for the LaTeX3 project In-Reply-To: Date: Tue, 21 Oct 1997 22:38:10 +0100 From: Frank Mittelbach Sender: Mailing list for the LaTeX3 project To: Multiple recipients of list LATEX-L Subject: Re: Extended include Status: R X-Status: X-Keywords: X-UID: 2498 Michael John Downes writes: > How about seeking to avoid the copying altogether? According to a small > experiment I just did it seems it might be possible to do this, with a > slight cost: using three extensions aux, auy, auz instead of just two. > (But in the case of a book with multiple \include statements the > subordinate files never use the .aux extension; only \jobname.au[xyz] > uses all three.) i think that Michael's idea is most likely working and it certainly has the advantage of avoiding a slow copy step (if that step is done by TeX). his mail also reminded me that i forgot to mention that, of course, you have compare both aux files before that copy step, line by line up to the point where you notice they differ. Again a slow operation if done by TeX and again that can be moved to some operating script to speed things up. instead of executing the the aux file at the end (as currently done by LaTeX) to write the .toc type files and test for changes in labels a full comparison has the advantage that it also detects changes in something like the toc or in the index or whatever if you keep everything in the same aux file up to that point. > another run is necessary). Then external OS scripts that want to test > whether another run is necessary could look only at the first line of > the .aux file instead of diffing .auy and .auz (maybe a bit of a pain > for a multi-\include document). i don't see much problem checking for changed data at os level as we have only two files to compare independent of the number of includes. frank