[OS X TeX] Re: [ANN] MetaPost Scripts (aka MetaPost Engines 1.3.2b1)

[Nicola]

In article <C76705DB-67E1-4F30-ABE2-F5DA8B505437 at skynet.be>,
 Franck Pastor <franck.pastor at skynet.be> 
 wrote:

> Le 24 janv. 10 à 19:12, Nicola a écrit :
> 
> > Hi,
> > version 1.3.2b1 of my MetaPost Engines for TeXShop is available for
> > download 
>
> In the README for your MetaPost's engines, I notice this:
> 
> nv-metapost.engine is meant as a replacement for  
> “mpost” and nvmetafun.engine as a replacement for “mptopdf”.
> 
> Allow me to (partly) disagree: I think that the original "mpost"  
> engine of TeXShop should remain what it is. Because it is the most  
> relevant for the users of the mfpic package (from Dan Luecking), as I  
> am.

Yes, I have discussed about that with Richard Koch, and he plans to 
leave the original mpost engine as it is, not to break anything. The 
“mptopdf” engine should be replaced by nv-metafun instead.

> If you have mfpic code embedded in your original LaTeX document, you  
> only have to typeset it first with with LaTeX, then with MetaPost  
> (settled with the original TeXShop engine), and then again with LaTeX,  
> and it's done.

Nice, I hadn't realized that. Could you please send me an example that I 
can test?

> Mpfic does not need any PDF version of the MetaPost  
> pictures to include them in the document.

nv-metapost can be instructed not to output PDF if you don't want 
(there's a FAQ entry in the README about that). The engine nv-metapost 
with PDF output turned off just runs mpost, as the current mpost engine 
in TeXShop does.

> Moreover, in this process  
> you don't have to open different files. Only the original LaTeX file  
> is needed to remain open (exactly as in a BibTeX processing). In the  
> second step, TeXShop locates automatically the ".mp" document and  
> typesets it with its relevant mpost engine. See the "ConTeXt and  
> MetaPost" section in TeXShop's Help.
> 
> Your metapost engine is unfortunately not able to do that

I see. I will try to fix that.

> So I think that your metapost engine is in the right place with the  
> "mptopdf" option of TeXShop's preferences, since it produces a pdf  
> output, while the original TeXShop "mpost" engine only producees mps  
> files (which are sufficient for mfpic, I repeat). Moreover, the new  
> version of your metapost engine produces PDF version of each picture,  
> which is exactly what the old mptopdf engine did.
> As for the metafun engine, I do not think it should replace anything.  
> It is good as it is, as a supplementary engine for ConTeXt and  
> MetaFun's users.

I do not agree. The old 'mptopdf' in TeXShop runs mptopdf, so it is able 
to process MetaFun macros and deal with specials like externalfigure, 
transparency, etc... My nv-metafun does that, but nv-metapost doesn't 
(at least, not by default).

Regards,
Nicola