[metapost] mptopdf corrupts source file - Engines.tar.bz2 (1/1)

Nicola nvitacolonna at gmail.com
Sat Jan 23 11:21:09 CET 2010

In article <B413ED5D-FF77-4421-9ADE-76F662971D76 at mac.com>,
 Franck Pastor <franck.pastor at mac.com> wrote:

> Le 17 janv. 10 à 15:12, Nicola a écrit :
> > Let me clarify a bit. I have written two scripts:
> >
> > (1) metapost.engine: runs your source file through 'mpost'.
> > (2) metafun.engine: runs your source file through 'mpost -mem=metafun'
> > and then processes the output with 'mptopdf'. This shouldn't be any
> > different from processing the source files directly with mptopdf (the
> > main reason why the script doesn't do that is because mptopdf doesn't
> > understand filenametemplate).
> >
> > So, you should use (2) whenever you need features from MetaFun/ 
> > ConTeXt.
> > Unfortunately, the script that is run when you choose 'mptopdf' in
> > TeXShop preferences is (1), not (2) - which is certainly confusing. I
> > will ask Richard Koch to fix that.
>   If I understand well, (2) is fit for ConTeXt users, but not for  
> LaTeX users (such as myself).

Not exactly. A better distinction is based on the format used (Plain 
MetaPost vs MetaFun) rather the output produced.  In the latest version, 
both engines output both eps and pdf files.

The idea is that both scripts may be used by LaTeX and ConTeXt users, 
even if the latter would choose (2) most of the time, and LaTeX users 
might choose (2) if (a) they need the MetaFun macros (b) they plan to 
include pdf figures (and not eps) in their documents (if they try to 
include the eps, some features, like transparencies and shadows, won't 

I am in contact with Richard Koch, and the next TeXShop release will 
include an update of my engines and a better description of the 
available options.

But I think this is getting a bit off-topic in this list: if you follow 
gmane.comp.tex.macosx, I will announce my update there (next week, 


More information about the metapost mailing list