The latexmk command used to be the uniformly accepted "make" command for TeX. It does not seem to support makeglossaries, and still keeps all the files in the same directory.

Are these the only differences? Would it be possible to document how exactly cluttex improves over latemk?

How to pass options (e.g., --shell-escape) within Emacs?

こんにちは。最近ClutTeXを知って使ってみました。
使っていて気になったのですが、エスケープシーケンスによるカラー出力で、[EXEC]のメッセージと[ERROR]のメッセージはどちらも全く同じ色(赤)で出力されるようです。

別の色にした方がわかりやすいと思うのですが、どうでしょうか？

現在のClutTeXの--bibtexオプションでは、BibTeXが再実行されるかはauxファイルが更新されたかどうか（？）で決まっているようです。
そのため、bibファイルのエントリの中身を変えるだけではBibTeXは再実行されず、古いbblが使われてしまいます。
なのでbibファイルのエントリを更新したときもBibTeXを再実行する機能が欲しいです。

BibTeXが再実行されるべきなのは、「LaTeXソースで使われているBibTeXエントリ」の中身が「書き変わった場合」ですが、これは大変なので、使われているbibファイルたちの更新日時とbblファイルの更新日時を比べてbblファイルが古ければBibTeXを再実行する、のが現実的な気がします。
ClutTeXの実装を見てみましたが、extract_bibtex_from_aux_fileでbibdataの中をパースしてbibファイル名を取り出してごにょごにょするのかなと思います。が、BIBINPUTSやbiberのことも考えると難しそうです...

--makeglossaries doesn't work with other extensions than .glo/.glg/.gls. Therefore, it can't be used for acronyms or other glossaries.

I'd work on this, but not right now. Just wanted to file this "bug/feature".

I'd have to read the glossaries documentation more carefully if there are some common extensions (I think so). Then maybe we should activate these by default and allow the user to add more extensions to it.

I think Lua is a good language for some little scripting, but not very good for a complex application like ClutTeX. I want to switch to a statically-typed language.

However, a Lua script has the advantage that it can easily be distributed with TeX Live (see Contributing packages - TeX Live - TeX Users Group).

Therefore, a transpiler from the statically-typed language to Lua is needed. There are some choices:

• teal-language/tl: The compiler for Teal, a typed dialect of Lua
• Unisay/purescript-lua: Purescript compiler back-end for Lua

...but neither existed around 2020 (at least, I didn't know). So I created LunarML:

• minoki/LunarML: A Standard ML compiler that produces Lua/JavaScript

After several years of development, LunarML has become somewhat usable. So it is a good time to rewrite ClutTeX in Standard ML.

The plan is:

1. Release ClutTeX v0.6 with already-merged and ongoing changes.
2. Rewrite ClutTeX in Standard ML; this is being done in sml branch. Some parts will remain in Lua.
3. Release LunarML v0.1 after confirming it is usable enough for ClutTeX's needs.
   • Hopefully, in 2023.
4. Release ClutTeX v0.7, compiled with LunarML.

I got a warning when I, with the latest TeX Live, ran

$ cluttex --engine=pdflatex

against a LaTeX file that has:

\usepackage{xparse}

The error message said

[DIAG] The driver option for expl3 is missing or wrong.
[DIAG] Consider setting 'driver=pdfmode' option when loading expl3.

However this warning is no longer valid since l3backend has received its updates and we have l3backend-pdftex.def, l3backend-luatex.def, and l3backend-xetex.def instead of l3backend-pdfmode.def and l3backend-xdvipdfmx.def. A pull request that will fix this will follow.

最新のTeX Live で expl3 を読み込む LaTex file を clpdflatex すると expl3 のドライバミスマッチエラーがでます．これは l3backend のドライバ名が pdfmode -> pdftex, luatex および
xdvipdfmx -> xetex と変わったためだと思われます．PR投げて修正しますが，Luaは不慣れなのでお助けいただけるとありがたいです．

I often make mistake that specifies the wrong engine for my LaTeX files.
So I want to specify the engine in the head of the LaTeX file.
Is there any support for such function?

Is it possible to add an option similar to --includeonly called --inputonly?

cluttex supports \include with the "-includeonly" option,
but this primitive(?) has the side effect of page breaks.
To avoid this, I started to use 'source' instead of '\input'.
At the same time, I am beginning to wish there was a similar option called "--iinputonly"
as like as "--includeonly".

If possible, please consider it.

Hi,
I'm currently writing some sort of benchmarking feature which enables the user to see which sections take long time to compile (it is open what to do with that information, but I find it interesting to know which parts take a long time (except for the preamble parsing/loading which hardly can be measured) the overall compilation time is high).

For that purpose, one would need to add this snippet to the preamble

\usepackage{l3benchmark}
\newwrite\benchmarkOutput
\immediate\openout\benchmarkOutput=\jobname.time
\ExplSyntaxOn
\AddToHook{cmd/section/before}{\benchmark_toc:\immediate\write\myoutput{\thesection \g_benchmark_time_fp}\benchmark_tic:}
\benchmark_tic:
\ExplSyntaxOff

(see l3benchmark.pdf for reference)

This creates a new file which holds the benchmarking results and the corresponding section number (which can be resolved by the use of the .aux file to the section name (this is done with a simple lua function called in the end which just parses the files)).

Does someone have an idea how to inject this into the input tex file? (I think the alternative would be to display information to the user what to add to the preamble if the time file is too old or not present)

PS: Sorry for asking the question as an issue, but I didn't found another way to get in touch.

Hi,
I've read that setting -output-directory for latex engines breaks many packages. So I thought of using cd instead of setting output-directory (in effect this should be similar to cd <dir> && <latex-engine> ... && cp <output-file> ../ instead of <latex-engine> -output-directory <dir> && cp <dir>/<output-file> ./).

Is this possible with the current set of options?

If not can one avoid that cluttex sets output-directory at all (so that cd etc can be handled by a Makefile on my own)?