Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > comp.lang.postscript > #3199
| From | Carlos <carlos@cvkm.cz> |
|---|---|
| Newsgroups | comp.lang.postscript |
| Subject | Re: bind’ing loops |
| Date | 2017-11-21 21:34 +0100 |
| Organization | A noiseless patient Spider |
| Message-ID | <20171121213455.423a2bee@samara.DOMA> (permalink) |
| References | <0a457d13-e123-42e2-9a2f-f1801af3db2c@googlegroups.com> |
[jdaw1 <jdawiseman@gmail.com>, 2017-11-20 04:26]
> Much PostScript code includes pieces resembling “/… {…} bind def”. Very
> standard.
>
> Rarely do I use “… {…} bind forall”, and likewise “… {…} bind repeat” and “…
> … … {…} bind for”. Is this just me? Are you folks all enthusiastic bind’ers
> of loops?
>
> Let’s be specific. Would you bind:
>
> true
> [ /showpage /setcolorspace /setcolorspace /setgray /setrgbcolor /sethsbcolor /setcmykcolor /setpattern /setcolor /image /imagemask ]
> {load type /operatortype ne {pop //false exit} if} forall
>
> ?
If I have a loop at top level, its body is almost never more complicated than
a couple of gsave/grestore, a call to a named proc that does the work, and
maybe a showpage. I don't bind them (but the proc that does the work is usually
bound, and, of course, therefore also the loop bodies in it).
--
Back to comp.lang.postscript | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar
bind’ing loops jdaw1 <jdawiseman@gmail.com> - 2017-11-20 04:26 -0800
Re: bind’ing loops Carlos <carlos@cvkm.cz> - 2017-11-21 21:34 +0100
Re: bind’ing loops luser droog <luser.droog@gmail.com> - 2017-11-21 16:39 -0800
csiph-web