Re: [AUCTeX-devel] This ascender bug in dvipng mode...

[David Kastrup]

Jan-Åke Larsson <address@hidden> writes:

> David Kastrup wrote:
>> So what is the string that you match with?  The complete special,
>> front to back?  In that case, I might call this choice imprudent, but
>> then it is not exactly fast that I noticed this...  You might have
>> said something to that effect, and I might just not have said anything
>> before I forgot it again.
>
> Well, I implemented the behaviour of that exact bop-hook... and there is
> no identifier "preview-tightpage" to match. This was written well before
> any attempt to use dvipng in preview-latex, so perhaps neither you nor I
> paid enough attention to it. Pity.
>
>> If you indeed match the complete special, front to back,
>
> Yep.
>
>> well...  Perhaps then I should do two PostScript specials.  The first
>> one doing all of the work, and then skipping over the second one.  And
>> the second one being the old special...
>  >
>> This would be one heck of a brutal hack, but reasonably easy to do.
>> And we would remove it once Dvipng 1.5 is no longer widespread.
>
> I have been thinking that -T tightpage is perhaps not a good thing
> after all. The desicion should be made once, as it were, in the .tex
> file.  Probably it would be better to include an easily-identified
> string in the new special that is constant over preview versions. It
> is also possible to add a new dvipng-specific special, but I'd
> prefer not to do that.

(preview 0.9.1)pop(tightpage)pop

could be used to start the PostScript.  While not being particularly
for dvipng, it could spread the word without causing PostScript
warnings.

-- 
David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum