5

Consider the following example, in which the sentence Ceci est un résumé. is written into the file \jobname.mytmp and then being read back.

\documentclass{article}

\usepackage{fancyvrb}


\begin{document}


\begin{VerbatimOut}{\jobname.mytmp}
    Ceci est un résumé.
\end{VerbatimOut}


\input{\jobname.mytmp}


\end{document}

However, this cannot be compiled with pdflatex, as one would get Package inputenc: Invalid UTF-8 byte sequence. Further investigation shows that \jobname.mytmp is not coded in UTF-8 but rather in "Windows 1252" (this is guessed by vscode, personally I don't know what this is). Is there a fix to this?

Jinwen
  • 8,518
  • Is something stopping you from using either XeLaTeX or LuaLaTeX? – Mico May 09 '21 at 07:22
  • @Mico Personally I usually use XeLaTeX. But this code is in a package that suppose to compile with any major TeX engine, so I'm looking for a fix for the pdfLaTeX case. – Jinwen May 09 '21 at 07:26

1 Answers1

4

The fancyvrb package uses \immediate\write, but this has the consequence that active characters not explicitly inactivated (such as ~) are expanded.

If you patch the code to use a “protected” immediate write, it works.

\documentclass{article}

\usepackage{fancyvrb}
\usepackage{etoolbox}


\makeatletter
% define the same as \protected@write, but with \immediate
\providecommand*\protected@iwrite[3]{%
  \begingroup
  \let\thepage\relax
  #2%
  \let\protect@unexpandable@protect
  \edef\reserved@a{\immediate\write#1{#3}}\reserved@a
  \endgroup
  \if@nobreak\ifvmode\nobreak\fi\fi
}
\patchcmd{\FVB@VerbatimOut}
  {\immediate\write\FV@OutFile}
  {\protected@iwrite\FV@OutFile{}}
  {}{}
\makeatother


\begin{document}


\begin{VerbatimOut}{\jobname.mytmp}
    Ceci est un résumé.
\end{VerbatimOut}


\input{\jobname.mytmp}


\end{document}

The contents of the written file is

    Ceci est un résumé.
egreg
  • 1,121,712
  • Thank you for this! May I ask one question: will this patch possibly cause any other undesirable new errors in some case? – Jinwen May 09 '21 at 08:38
  • @Jinwen I don't think so, because macros are already “neutralized” because the backslash has been made a printable character. – egreg May 09 '21 at 09:16