I ha­ve spent a li­ttle ti­me on rs­t2­pdf the­se last few da­ys. It does­n't look too ba­d, con­si­de­ring the long ne­glec­t, but the­re is so­me breaka­ge.

After going over al­most 300 in­te­gra­tion tes­ts by han­d, I iden­ti­fied a few re­gres­sions (and a cou­ple of bugs that fixed the­msel­ve­s, ya­y).

So, in or­der to do a re­lea­se, I am ho­ping to fix the­s­e:

• Is­­sue 289: bro­­ken bu­­llet cus­­to­­­mi­­za­­tion

• Is­­sue 310: Li­­ne nu­m­­bers when in­­clu­­ding sou­r­­ces in co­­­de­­blo­­­cks are wrong

• Is­­sue 337: La­­yout error of in­­li­­ne ima­­ges in a ta­­ble

• Is­­sue 483: Sty­­le­s­heet In­­clu­­des seem bro­­ken

• Is­­sue 374: So­­­me­­ti­­mes li­­te­­ral blo­­­cks are bro­­ken in two or mo­­­re pie­­ces

• Is­­sue 482: Li­­ne blo­­­cks wi­­th in­­den­ted pa­r­­ts get ex­­tra­­neous spa­­cing

• Is­­sue 484: Dee­­ply nes­ted lis­­ts break spa­­cing

• Is­­sue 478: Nes­­te­­d/­­va­­ria­­ble span ta­­ble wi­­dths are in­­co­­­rrect

• Is­­sue 470: Li­nks on fi­­gu­­res

I pro­ba­bly wi­ll not fix them all, and trunk wo­rks mu­ch be­tter for many ca­ses than 0.92 so I should not blo­ck a re­lea­se on any of the­s­e, rea­ll­y. I wi­ll gi­ve myself a cou­ple of weeks to see how many (if an­y) I can get do­ne.

On the other han­d, if an­yo­ne rea­ding this feels ad­ven­tu­rous, and wan­ts to lend a han­d, help is alwa­ys wel­co­me.

In the meanti­me, this is a list of wha­t's chan­ged in trunk from ver­sion 0.92:

• Su­­pport rs­­t2­­pdf [inf [ou­­tf]] syn­­tax to be mo­­­re co­m­­pa­­ti­­ble wi­­th rs­­t2*

• Im­­ple­­men­ted Is­­sue 389: New --s­­tri­­p-e­­le­­men­­t-wi­­th-­­cla­ss op­­tion

• Fixed Is­­sue 474: Ce­­ll­S­­ty­­le1 is not the­­re in re­­po­r­­tlab 2.6

• Re­­mo­­­ved de­­fault pa­­dding from De­­la­­ye­­dTa­­ble, whi­­ch looked bad on hea­­de­r­s/­­foote­r­s.

• Im­­pro­­­ve­­men­­ts to the ma­­th di­­re­c­­ti­­ve (font co­­­lor and si­­ze)

• Be­­­tter su­­pport for sty­­ling li­­te­­ra­l­s.

• Fixed Is­­sue 454 (S­­pli­­tting fai­­lu­­re)

• Swi­­tched from sv­­glib to sv­­g2rlg

• Re­­mo­­­ved uni­­co­n­­ve­r­­tor su­­pport

• Fixed Is­­sue 477: Si­nk footno­­­te se­­pa­­ra­­tor (pa­­tch by ase­r­­ma­­x)

• Fixed Is­­sue 473: Su­­pport "co­­­de" di­­re­c­­ti­­ve like an alias of co­­­de-­­blo­­­ck.

• Fixed Is­­sue 472: Im­­ple­­men­ted MyI­­ma­­ge._un­­Res­­tri­c­­tSi­­ze

• Fixed Is­­sue 471: Res­­pect cla­ss in li­­ne­­blo­­­cks.

• Fixed Is­­sue 455: New pi­s­a/­­xh­t­­m­­l2­­pdf has ve­­ry di­­ffe­­rent im­­po­r­­ts

• Ma­­rked Is­­sue 358 as fixed (Li­­te­­ral blo­­­cks ren­­de­­red wi­­th la­r­­ge bo­­­ttom ma­r­­gi­n)

• Fixed Is­­sue 410: alwa­­ys in­­clu­­de fu­­ll li­­nes in co­­­de-­­blo­­­cks (m­­mue­­ller pa­­tch)

It does­n't ma­tter what I am doin­g, be it wo­rk, a ho­bb­y, or just ta­lkin­g, I ha­ve a cons­tant fea­r, in the ba­ck­ground pro­ce­s­ses of my min­d, that I wi­ll be dis­co­ve­re­d, that I wi­ll be found to be a ha­ck, a frau­d, a con­man.

It does­n't ma­tter if I am ac­tua­lly a ha­ck at what I am doing at the ti­me, or if it's so­me­thing I am rea­lly good at, or if it's so­me­thing tha­t's im­po­s­si­ble to be a fraud at. That li­ttle voi­ce of in­se­cu­ri­ty is the­re, all the ti­me, sa­ying "the­y'­ll fi­gu­re you ou­t, the­y'­ll kno­w, the­y'­ll rea­li­ze you are fu­ll of cra­p".

I kno­w, ra­tio­na­ll­y, that I do­n't rea­lly su­ck at most of the things I do, and tho­se I su­ck at, I could do be­tte­r, be­cau­se I al­so ha­ve this other irra­tio­nal voi­ce te­lling me I can do pre­tty mu­ch eve­r­y­thin­g. I won­der if tho­se voi­ces are the sa­me thin­g, or if they are like the de­vil and an­gel in my shoul­der­s.

Being an in­tro­vert means I do­n't want to be sho­wn as a ha­ck, so I try to do things we­ll, so I am not rea­lly a ha­ck, so I am not sho­wn as a ha­ck. If I am con­sis­ten­tly not a ha­ck, I get in­sa­ne­ly con­fi­dent that I can do stu­ff I rea­lly can't do, be­cau­se I am a ha­ck at tho­se.

I speak in con­fe­ren­ce­s, whi­ch for an in­tro­vert is di­ffi­cul­t, but sin­ce I do­n't want to be a ha­ck, I try to fi­gu­re out how to do it, and it see­ms I am not bad at it, but be­fo­re I do it, eve­ry ti­me, I feel like a ha­ck, I know I should ha­ve do­ne my sli­des ear­lie­r, I should ha­ve re­hear­se­d, I should know what I am going to sa­y, and I did­n'­t, could­n'­t, do­n'­t.

Whe­ne­ver I ha­ve a pro­blem and google and see my own ear­lier fum­blings appear as re­sul­ts, I won­der if tha­t's ac­tua­lly the le­vel of kno­w­le­dge out the­re, if eve­r­yo­ne el­se is as mu­ch of a ha­ck as I am, and I des­pai­r. Then I try to fi­gu­re things out and do it be­tte­r, and pro­ba­bly stop being a ha­ck for a li­ttle bi­t.

I am an en­gi­ne fue­led by in­se­cu­ri­ty and neu­ro­sis. It's exhaus­tin­g. It's a lot of fun.

First new fea­tu­re in rs­t2­pdf in a long long ti­me, but it was ea­sy to do, and the­re was an ac­tual user nee­ding it.

This ex­po­ses func­tio­na­li­ty rs­t2ht­ml al­ready ha­d, so tha­t's pro­ba­bly why it was ea­sy to do ;-)

In any ca­se, what is it and what is it good fo­r?

If you ma­rk so­me­thing wi­th a cla­ss, you can now omit it from the ou­tpu­t:

.. class:: ignored

This will not be in the output if you use --strip-elements-with-class=ignored

And it's use­fu­l, for exam­ple, so you can keep sli­des and pre­sen­ta­tion no­tes in the sa­me fi­le. You just put your no­tes in a cla­ss you strip when pro­du­cing the sli­des.

Sin­ce so­me cla­s­ses are au­to­ma­ti­ca­lly as­sig­ned for ad­mo­ni­tion­s, this is ex­tra sim­ple:

.. note:: This is a note admonition.

   Note admonitions always have the note class. So you can strip them easily.

And if you do­n't strip the­m, they wi­ll look pre­tty.

Last ni­ght they we­re pla­ying "X-­Men: First cla­ss" on TV, and I on­ce again saw this:

And of cour­se, the­re are a few de­tails wrong wi­th that pic­tu­re:

No­ti­ce any di­ffe­ren­ce­s?

So, alwa­ys re­mem­be­r: mo­vies lie to you about eve­r­y­thin­g, even if the­re's no nee­d, be­cau­se they are en­ter­tain­men­t.

Pa­sé el fin de se­ma­na en el cam­po, en Cruz del Eje, y char­lé con mu­cha gen­te que veo muy de vez en cuan­do. Su­pon­ga­mos que uno de ellos se lla­ma Ger­mán Ja­vu­rek (por­que así se lla­ma), el her­ma­no de la mu­jer de mi sue­gro (y no, no hay ma­ne­ra mas cor­ta de ex­pli­car eso­), un ti­pa­zo, que me cae muy bien.

Char­lan­do con él y mi cu­ña­di­ta Lau­ra, ella le re­cuer­da la vez que le ha­bló de la di­fe­ren­cia en­tre es­tar ves­ti­do de gau­cho y dis­fra­za­do de gau­cho. Le di­go a Lau­ra que por ejem­plo, si Ger­mán tie­ne pues­ta ro­pa de gau­cho, él es­tá ves­ti­do, si me las vé pues­tas a mí, es­toy dis­fra­za­do. [1]

Eso lle­vó la char­la a la de­fi­ni­ción de Ger­mán de sí mis­mo co­mo "un tra­di­cio­na­lis­ta". Eso ha­ce que su ape­ro sea de de­ter­mi­na­da ma­ne­ra, su ves­ti­men­ta de gau­cho sea de una de­ter­mi­na­da ma­ne­ra, ya que él es cor­do­bé­s, y a que use tien­tos en vez de cuer­da­s, y así su­ce­si­va­men­te.

In­clu­si­ve has­ta un co­men­ta­rio es­ti­lo "a lo que ha lle­ga­do el mun­do­", acer­ca de gru­pos de gau­chos que usan mon­tu­ra chi­le­na, he­re­jía ini­ma­gi­na­ble pa­ra un tra­di­cio­na­lis­ta, o bo­ca­do de ny­lo­n, y a su "a­sí en­tien­do yo lo que es ser un tra­di­cio­na­lis­ta, los de­más que ha­gan lo que quie­ran, pe­ro yo lo en­tien­do así"

Y ... yo no lo en­tien­do así :-)

No me pu­se a dis­cu­ti­r, por­que ... ¡Pa­ra qué me voy a po­ner a dis­cu­tir en el cum­ple de se­ten­ta de mi sue­gro con un ti­po que veo dos ve­ces al año y en­ci­ma me caen bien él y to­da su fa­mi­lia!

Pe­ro yo me ima­gino que si a un gau­cho de 1830 le mos­tra­bas un bo­ca­do de ny­lo­n, y du­ra má­s, o una mon­tu­ra chi­le­na y le pa­re­cía más prác­ti­ca, los adop­ta­ba. Por­que ha­brá si­do un gau­cho, pe­ro la tra­di­ción del gau­cho no la for­ma el gau­cho, la for­ma el ti­po que ex­tra­ña al gau­cho, o el ti­po que vió al gau­cho de chi­co, o el ti­po que es­cri­bió so­bre el gau­cho.

Un gau­cho usa­ba el ape­ro que le ven­dían o el que sa­bía ha­cer­se, o se co­pia­ba del ve­cino. No te­nía pro­ble­mas en usar re­vól­ve­res fran­ce­s­es, o te­las in­gle­sas pa­ra la ro­pa (el pro­ble­ma es que era ca­ro­).

No me ima­gino a un gau­cho cor­do­bés ca­gán­do­se de frío pe­ro no usan­do un po­cho sal­te­ño por­que no co­rres­pon­die­ra a la ves­ti­men­ta ade­cua­da pa­ra el gau­cho cor­do­bé­s. Des­de ya que pue­do es­tar com­ple­ta­men­te equi­vo­ca­do y ca­da zo­na es­ta­ba lle­na de gau­chos fe­ti­chis­tas de la mo­da que aho­ra es­ta­rían to­dos usan­do chu­pi­nes y ante­ojos ne­gros de mar­co grue­so, pe­ro no me sue­na co­mo al­go que ha­ría el gau­cho, de acuer­do a lo que he leí­do, al ru­mo­r, a la le­yen­da del gau­cho. El gau­cho era un ti­po prác­ti­co.

En­ton­ce­s, si al gau­cho mis­mo no le im­por­ta­ba... ¿qué tra­di­ción es ésa? ¿Ha­brá den­tro de cien años una agru­pa­ción tra­di­cio­na­lis­ta del flo­gger del Abas­to? ¿Dis­cu­ti­rán acer­ca de si lle­va­ban el fle­qui­llo a la de­re­cha o la iz­quier­da? ¿A­cer­ca de la mar­ca co­rrec­ta de za­pa­ti­llas pa­ra el ro­lin­ga de Mo­ró­n?

Yo sé que co­rro con mu­chas des­ven­ta­jas en es­ta dis­cu­sió­n, ya que mi opi­nión no le im­por­ta un ca­ra­jo a na­die, que soy to­tal­men­te de afue­ra, er­go soy de pa­lo, y que tie­nen, has­ta cier­to pun­to, ra­zó­n, los gau­chos cor­do­be­ses se ves­tían dis­tin­to de los sal­te­ño­s, y ellos de los su­re­ño­s, y así.

Pe­ro no veo que la di­fe­ren­cia sea im­por­tan­te. Veo que si que­rés ho­me­na­jear al gau­cho, fi­já­te las co­sas que les im­por­ta­ban a ello­s, no las que les im­por­ta­ban a los que los veían de afue­ra, lo su­per­fi­cia­l, el co­lor del pon­cho, el ma­te­rial del bo­ca­do, el di­se­ño de la mon­tu­ra.

Por­que imi­tar las des­crip­cio­nes de los gau­chos que ha­cían los tu­ris­tas, eso, se­ño­res, es dis­fra­zar­se de gau­cho.