Hello, some miscellaneous notes while playing with LuaTeX 0.20.0: - Currently, the 'open_read_file' callback is only used if a 'find_read_file' callback is registered as well. Since on Apr 24 2007, Taco wrote on the mailing list (subject '\input does not look at open_read_file callback?') that this would be fixed, I suspect that this is a bug. - I want to register an open_read_file callback that is called to open the job file. \everyjob is executed after the job file has been opened, so I cannot use it to register the callback. Also, callbacks are not dumped into the format file, so I cannot register the callback while creating the format. What now? - I could use the command line switch "--lua" to execute a special script which registers the callbacks (and deal with the fact that I cannot use kpathsea to locate this script)? - I could call luatex not with the file name but like this: luatex -jobname <filename> '\input <filename>' - [insert simple and elegant solution] (On Apr 02 2007, Taco wrote on the mailing list (subject 'LaTeX and LuaTeX'), that dumping of callbacks could be added. If there was a vote on this, I would vote with 'yes' :-) - The following command line crashes LuaTeX with a bus error (yes, yes the bus that people are riding on without a ticket): luatex '\directlua0{texio.write("term and log","Hello")}' No destination or destination "term" works. The problem seems to be that LuaTeX wants to log to the log file, but the log file is not open yet. Stacktrace (not very useful, I'm afraid, since the symbols are missing): 0 libSystem.B.dylib 0x9003fd9c putc + 60 1 luatex 0x0000d3e4 0x1000 + 50148 2 luatex 0x0000d9e8 0x1000 + 51688 3 luatex 0x000a74bc 0x1000 + 681148 4 luatex 0x0015c5d0 0x1000 + 1422800 5 luatex 0x00164310 0x1000 + 1454864 6 luatex 0x0015c6a4 0x1000 + 1423012 7 luatex 0x0015bab4 0x1000 + 1419956 8 luatex 0x0015ca6c 0x1000 + 1423980 9 luatex 0x0015ab10 0x1000 + 1415952 10 luatex 0x000a5878 0x1000 + 673912 11 luatex 0x0003c850 0x1000 + 243792 12 luatex 0x000238b4 0x1000 + 141492 13 luatex 0x00023de4 0x1000 + 142820 14 luatex 0x00068004 0x1000 + 421892 15 luatex 0x0000cf04 0x1000 + 48900 16 luatex 0x00070694 0x1000 + 456340 17 luatex 0x00001d54 0x1000 + 3412 18 luatex 0x00001bfc 0x1000 + 3068 - Is it sensible to point the string functions, which are not Unicode-aware, to unicode.utf8, or are there situations (due to differences in functionality) that still require the original string functions? (I would suspect that the original functions are a bit faster) - lpeg does not seem to be UTF-8-aware. Is this impression correct? If so, how should one proceed to use it safely? I would estimate that this is mainly a problem when matching using a set ("lpeg.S") containing characters outside the first 256 code points, since when matching, a character is checked against each *byte* in the set string, not each character. Jonathan