Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > comp.lang.postscript > #851
| From | jdaw1 <jdawiseman@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Newsgroups | comp.lang.postscript |
| Subject | Re: execform, 75% faded |
| Date | 2012-08-01 01:02 -0700 |
| Organization | http://groups.google.com |
| Message-ID | <160df307-bbd3-461c-a94d-e03d281095d2@googlegroups.com> (permalink) |
| References | <1390895d-c740-4357-9ad1-c5a506fce680@googlegroups.com> <B35Sr.574430$%k.181567@fx20.am4> |
On Wednesday, August 1, 2012 8:40:17 AM UTC+1, Chris wrote: > Can't you just replace the form with a procedure containing the marking operations and call the procedure instead of execform? Chris But my output has complicated elements that are repeated many times. E.g., see http://www.jdawiseman.com/2012/20120725_olympic.pdf Without forms that file would be on the chunky side of ten megs. I suppose the faded version of my forms could be wrapped in its own form, which would then call the ‘inner’ form as a routine rather than as a form. Even though inelegant, that might be the way forward. (And anyway, Ghostscript seems to ignore forms.) But even that has the problem that there is no guarantee that the innermost code parameters set colours with setgray rather than, for example, setrgbcolor. ¿”Innermost parameters”? Huh? This code is really code, rather than page description. See, for an idea of the degree of possible parameterisation, the following: http://www.jdawiseman.com/placemat.html E.g., my software’s parameters that contain arbitrary user-chosen colour-setting code include CrossHatchingBackgroundStrokeCode, CrossHatchingTitlesStrokeCode, RaysStrokeCode, TastingNotesColumnStrokeCode, and others. Hence re-def’ing setgray might not suffice. Maybe the better solution would be to grouch to Apple that Preview ignores PDF’s embedded transfers. Again, let me praise this bulletin board, whose regulars seem to know lots and know it promptly. Thank you.
Back to comp.lang.postscript | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll 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