Re: "new" \input vs. primitive behavior

On 28/07/2023 16:14, LARONDE Thierry wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 28, 2023 at 03:58:49PM +0100, Joseph Wright wrote:
>> On 28/07/2023 15:28,  Thierry wrote:
>>> Yes. But the same engine does things differently between LaTeX
>>> 2022-11-01 and LaTeX 2023-06-01.
>>>
>>> So could someone give me the diff of the input related things in
>>> LaTeX between these two versions so that I can have a clue about
>>> what LaTeX is expecting and what it is eventually calling (because it
>>> could be calling, low level, the open routine, and there is no
>>> acrobatics made in the open routine in kerTeX: the handling is made
>>> before calling the routine; so if LaTeX is calling low level like
>>> this, the result is not a surprise).
>> Older LaTeX used \openin + \ifeof to test for file existence; we now use
>> \(pdf)filesize, which is expandable and reports "0" for a non-existent f=
ile.
>> Both methods should find "foo.tex" from "foo" in the same way.
>>
> Uh! You expect \filesize to do searching and file extension? Why?
> \filesize can be called with whatever file, not necessarily a .tex.
> Why would it assume it has to try an extension if it is not found?
>
> Where was this specified for the primitive?

The primitive has always acted that way (since being added by pdftex)
it's not a latex feature.

If \input{xxx} inputs a file, \(pdf)filesize{xxx} should refer to the
same file, so the primitive has always used the same file searching.

David




Disclaimer

The Numerical Algorithms Group Ltd is a company registered in England and W=
ales with company number 1249803. The registered office is: 30 St. Giles, O=
xford, OX1 3LE, United Kingdom. Please see our Privacy Notice <https://www.=
nag.com/content/privacy-notice> for information on how we process personal =
data and for details of how to stop or limit communications from us.

This e-mail has been scanned for all viruses and malware by Microsoft Excha=
nge Online (EOP)