Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > comp.lang.postscript > #853

Re: execform, 75% faded

From jdaw1 <jdawiseman@gmail.com>
Newsgroups comp.lang.postscript
Subject Re: execform, 75% faded
Date 2012-08-01 02:53 -0700
Organization http://groups.google.com
Message-ID <0fa3d714-e8ee-4464-8c56-272a085501aa@googlegroups.com> (permalink)
References <1390895d-c740-4357-9ad1-c5a506fce680@googlegroups.com> <B35Sr.574430$%k.181567@fx20.am4> <160df307-bbd3-461c-a94d-e03d281095d2@googlegroups.com> <JA5Sr.576339$%k.404879@fx20.am4>

Show all headers | View raw

On Wednesday, August 1, 2012 9:15:37 AM UTC+1, Chris wrote:
> I don't follow that argument. The form dictionary contains a procedure (PaintProc) with all the marking operations. All I'm suggesting is that you slightly modify the existing PaintProc so you can use it as a standalone procedure (outside the context of the form dictionary). Do not "bind" the procedure! This would not involve any more PS code than using execform, but means you can reliably influence the behaviour of the procedure between invocations (something you cannot safely do with execform). Chris

Yes, that would have the effect you say. But the example output contains twenty-two copies of several complicated graphics. Using execform and Adobe Distiller causes the PDF to hold only two copies of each graphic (should be one, but it’s two), the third and subsequent instances being replaced with a pointer to the second. That greatly lightens the PDF, and might speed printing. If it is possible to dodge the Preview failure to render transfers without losing that lightness, that would be preferred. 

Also, no need to modify PaintProc. It can just be called differently: “dup /PaintProc get exec” rather than “execform”, which can be done by re-def’ing execform.

Back to comp.lang.postscript | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread

Thread

execform, 75% faded jdaw1 <jdawiseman@gmail.com> - 2012-07-30 01:57 -0700
  Re: execform, 75% faded luser- -droog <mijoryx@yahoo.com> - 2012-07-30 07:04 -0700
    Re: execform, 75% faded jdaw1 <jdawiseman@gmail.com> - 2012-07-31 06:24 -0700
      Re: execform, 75% faded jdaw1 <jdawiseman@gmail.com> - 2012-07-31 11:40 -0700
        Re: execform, 75% faded luser- -droog <mijoryx@yahoo.com> - 2012-07-31 16:02 -0700
          Re: execform, 75% faded jdaw1 <jdawiseman@gmail.com> - 2012-08-01 00:08 -0700
    Re: execform, 75% faded jdawiseman.bloomberg@gmail.com - 2019-04-20 06:46 -0700
      Re: execform, 75% faded jdawiseman.bloomberg@gmail.com - 2019-04-20 06:46 -0700
  Re: execform, 75% faded Chris <cjl@spamcop.net> - 2012-08-01 07:40 +0000
    Re: execform, 75% faded jdaw1 <jdawiseman@gmail.com> - 2012-08-01 01:02 -0700
      Re: execform, 75% faded Chris <cjl@spamcop.net> - 2012-08-01 08:15 +0000
        Re: execform, 75% faded jdaw1 <jdawiseman@gmail.com> - 2012-08-01 02:53 -0700
          Re: execform, 75% faded ken <ken@spamcop.net> - 2012-08-01 12:56 +0100
          Re: execform, 75% faded Chris <cjl@spamcop.net> - 2012-08-01 12:33 +0000
  Re: execform, 75% faded jdaw1 <jdawiseman@gmail.com> - 2012-08-01 05:47 -0700
    Re: execform, 75% faded jdaw1 <jdawiseman@gmail.com> - 2012-08-01 06:28 -0700
  Re: execform, 75% faded Don Lancaster <don@tinaja.com> - 2012-10-23 08:45 -0700
    Re: execform, 75% faded jdaw1 <jdawiseman@gmail.com> - 2015-04-25 15:05 -0700

csiph-web