dak at gnu.org
Fri Mar 30 18:00:19 CEST 2007
Taco Hoekwater <taco at elvenkind.com> writes:
> David Kastrup wrote:
>> line-based IIRC, but setting aside 10MB for the input line buffer is
>> just absurd. Actually, setting aside 300k is ridiculous already.
> Who talks about setting aside? Hans' proposal is about alleviating
> an artificial limit to the (supposedly dynamic) texmf.cnf setting
> for input_buffer. That limit really serves no purpose that I know of.
> Why should it matter how large Hans (or anyone else) wants the
> buffer to be, if the limit is artificial anyway?
>> We should reduce this to something like 4k or so and change the code
>> to cater with incomplete lines, or this madness will go on with ever
>> bigger sizes and discussions.
> I agree, but I have no time to write such code. Changing a constant
> value is much faster. If you write a change file, I expect it will
> be incorporated asap.
Change file, or would be a patch to luatex.web (respective to the
latest SVN version) be ok? In other words: if I do the code, will
someone else volunteer for turning this into some change file form or
other that would make it propagate elsewhere (stable PDFTeX? I suppose
it would be somewhat pointless to get it incorporated into eTeX, since
eTeX does no longer seem to make it into binaries on its own, but
exists mostly just as a changeset).
Or even submit it to Don, since he is supposed to deal with the next
batch of bug reports at the end of this year? Hey, I can dream.
More information about the tex-live