[Octave-bug-tracker] [bug #53861] print -dtikzstandalone is not a recognized print device

[Dan Sebald]

Follow-up Comment #9, bug #53861 (project octave):

Ben, I don't think this should be too difficult.  I'm attaching a diff file
which is pretty much the same as the first changeset file but I added a couple
lines that will print out the name and device options inside the 

function latex_standalone (opts)

of print.m.  So, without any changes other than the few in the first changeset
file, it looks as though the information one needs is already present in the
latex_standalone routine.  (BTW, GL2PS uses a "pgf" file while gnuplot uses a
"tikz" file, so obviously there is going to be some difference in the included
package files.  Hopefully Tatsuro can tell us what the difference should
be...and should this be a .pgf file rather than a .tikz file?)

Anyway, strategically this seems a simple matter of either adding some case
statements to latex_standalone() to address when opts.devopt is
"tikzstandalone" as opposed to the other three similar names.  OR, another
approach would be to recognize in the print.m routine that tikz is the desired
output format and do something like


  opts.pstoedit_cmd = @pstoedit;
  opts.fig2dev_cmd = @fig2dev;
  if (TIKZISOUTPUTFORMAT)
    opts.latex_standalone = @pgf_standalone;
  else
    opts.latex_standalone = @latex_standalone;
  endif
  opts.lpr_cmd = @lpr;
  opts.epstool_cmd = @epstool;


The question is, Is tikz standalone format close to the extra commands of
latex standalone format?  Or are they different enough that it makes more
sense to have a separate pgf_standalone()?  (That's "pgf_standalone", not
"pdf_standalone".)  We don't want the latex_standalone() routine to get too
cluttered.

    _______________________________________________________

Reply to this item at:

  <http://savannah.gnu.org/bugs/?53861>

_______________________________________________
  Message sent via Savannah
  https://savannah.gnu.org/