lettrine-xetex-bidi.def outdated

[dflipo]

Brief outline of the issue

lettrine-xetex-bidi.def patches an old definition of the internal command @lettrine of the lettrine package leading to issues with the current implementation.

Rather than updating the patched definition in lettrine-xetex-bidi.def, I suggest to include the RTL flag mechanism for the \parshape command in the original definition of @lettrine. I have an experimental version of lettrine.sty, appended here. Please let me know
lettrine.sty.gz
if something like that would enable to get rid of lettrine-xetex-bidi.def?

Check/indicate

• Relevant to the xepersian package
• [ x] The bidi package issue tracker has been searched for similar issues?
• The xepersian package issue tracker has been searched for similar issues?
• Links to <tex.stackexchange.com> discussion if appropriate
• Links to <qa.parsilatex.com> discussion if appropriate

Minimal example showing the issue

% !TEX TS-program = XeLaTeX
% !TEX encoding = UTF-8 Unicode


\documentclass{article}            % or some other class

  % Any packages other than the bidi package must be loaded here
\usepackage{lettrine}

  % The bidi package must be loaded as the last package
\usepackage{bidi}

  % Any preamble code goes here
  
\begin{document}

 \lettrine{V}{oici} un exemple 

\end{document}

Expected behavior

Log and PDF files

! Undefined control sequence.
\LettrineFont \L@initial

[kvafa]

Thanks for your bug report. Sure, I will certainly look into this but I'm afraid that will not be anytime soon as I am occupied by other things currently.

[EliseyP]

May be this post is answer?

#13 (comment)

This lettrine-xetex-bidi.def in texmf-local/tex/xelatex/bidi solve this problem for me.

[dflipo]

NO, this file is incompatible with the current version of lettrine.sty [2024/01/20 v.2.60]. Lettrine.sty is aware of bidi now.
Please consider replacing lettrine-xetex-bidi.def by the appended (zipped) version.
lettrine-xetex-bidi.zip

Patching an internal command of lettrine.sty (which is liable to change) is definitely not the way to go.

[EliseyP]

Thank you!
Yes, it was some kind of "dirty hacking" - I had to compile my task urgently.