| T.R | Title | User | Personal
Name | Date | Lines |
|---|
| 526.1 | me2! | WAGON::DONHAM | Born again! And again, and again... | Wed Jun 24 1987 15:33 | 11 |
|
I'm looking for the same thing...I have a 2,000-page set of manuals
that are in LaTeX which must be converted to DOCUMENT. Maybe it
would be easier to bypass GUTENTAG, dumping the converted LaTeX
code right into the formatter.
I'd like to talk with anyone who is even just *thinking* about this
conversion.
-Perry
|
| 526.2 | Quick and dirty solution | CASEE::RAYNER | Doug Rayner | Thu Jul 02 1987 03:28 | 17 |
| We had a few LaTeX documents that we wished to convert to DOCUMENT so I
recently wrote a VAX/SCAN program to convert only the LaTeX commands
that we were using. It could easily be enhanced to convert more of the
commands if someone who knew SCAN were willing to modify the source.
For example, we had only one table, so I did not translate those
commands (but I am now convinced that it would not have been too big a
job).
I may regret this later on, but I am willing to make available a copy
of the program image and the SCAN source file. Since we have converted
all of our LaTeX documents, we will not be enhancing the program any
further. If someone does more work on it, they might post a note here
for other interested people. Please keep in mind that this program is
offered on an "as is" basis:
CASEE::SYS$PUBLIC:LATEX2GNC.EXE
CASEE::SYS$PUBLIC:LATEX2GNC.SCN
|
| 526.3 | Thanks. I'll try it. | CADSYS::MCDONOUGH | | Tue Jul 07 1987 14:22 | 6 |
| re: 526.2
Thanks very much. I am going to give your program a try and _do_
understand that you cannot support it.
Kevin
|
| 526.4 | Anyone else? | CLARID::TURNBULL | | Mon Sep 07 1987 08:03 | 6 |
| RE: 526.2
Has anyone used and then expanded this converter, or does anyone have a
more powerful Latex-document tool?
Greg.
|
| 526.5 | I (temporarily?) gave up | IJSAPL::KLERK | Theo de Klerk | Mon Sep 07 1987 10:35 | 31 |
| I've used it some times and found that except for very simple files, it
is not of much use. It does save you some of the tedious replacements
for <list>s etc.
I've tried to expand on it a little (against better judgement) but
I ran into a lot of problems with Scan. To my experience with this
language {it{does{not{like{{nested}commands}very}much}}}. What you need
is a stack-oriented approach that pushes all commands and pops them
one after the other. Scan doesn't do that (I think). Pascal does, but
that means more programming on my side and I haven't got that time
(it has to stay a hack to me).
Effectively, currently I've given up. Some more problems encountered:
- Text in headers may be \bf or \it, whereas in Document you would not
want it that way and would rather ignore it.
- Sometimes it needs some intelligence to know when a certain command
end due to grouping and scope. This requires more than a simple push/pop
operation:
\section{\it a title}
effectively is a
\section{ {\it a title} }
- You need to remember \font definitions and ignore those commands when
encountered.
- Rather complicated math/tabular translations
- What about user abbreviations? I've always used \bv for \begin{verbatim}
and \def-ined it once.
A good translator sounds like a proper project with resources allocated
to it. It's not build on the fly.
Theo
|
| 526.6 | It should be official | CLARID::TURNBULL | | Thu Sep 10 1987 06:03 | 5 |
| You're right, I think that resources should be allocated to this
sort of project if Document is destined to become a DEC standard.
I will enter a new note with that request in mind.
Cheers, Greg.
|