Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!chinacat!woody
From: woody@chinacat.Unicom.COM (Woody Baker @ Eagle Signal)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.postscript
Subject: Re: PostScript vs TrueType?
Summary: It's Fontographer code.
Message-ID: <1549@chinacat.Unicom.COM>
Date: 5 Sep 90 18:23:38 GMT
References: <9724@goofy.Apple.COM> <438@three.mv.com> <9931@goofy.Apple.COM> <262@heaven.woodside.ca.us>
Organization: a guest of Unicom Systems Development, Austin
Lines: 52

In article <262@heaven.woodside.ca.us>, glenn@heaven.woodside.ca.us (Glenn Reid) writes:
> In article <1527@chinacat.Unicom.COM> woody@chinacat.Unicom.COM (Woody Baker @ Eagle Signal) writes:
> >That is why the string of comments is 6 characters long.  That way you
> >should be garanteed to get at least one match.  I tried making the
> >line 10 or 12 characters long, and it still failed.  I also tried
> >changing the (%%%) to something else like (***) ...
> 
> Woody, you're using the "eq" operator.  It has to match EXACTLY for "eq"


I did not write the code, it apparently was produced via fontographer.
But in either case, I believe that readstring fills the supplied string
completely, with characters, and stops.  This means that readstring will
read in 3 character chunks.  If you have 6 %'s in a row, it should find 3
of them.  If you had less, it could miss some as pointed out, and if you
had more you just would have an extra margin of saftey.  Increasing the
number did not solve the problem.

> Go read the green book, page 201, and look at the "userexec" procedure.
> There is code in there that flushes to a comment.  Notice that it uses
> the "readline" operator, as suggested by Ben Cranston.
> 
> The bottom line is that the technique of using "readstring" and "eq"
> can never be made to work 100% of the time.
> 
> 
> >What I cannot understand, is why this works on a PS-810, and Apple
> >Laserwriters, but fails on the NEC 890. (and only the nec 890 to my
> >knowlege).  I know that things worked flawlessly on my PS-810, but
> >failed on the nec 890.
> 
> I cannot understand it either, but it's more likely to be the way you
> transmit the file to the printer than it is the printer itself.  If you
> make the code better, along the lines of the various suggestions, it will
> not fail on the LC-890, or I'll eat a toner cartridge.

The fonts were supplied on  MS-DOS disks, along with screen fonts for
windows.  The platform was an AT clone, connected to the NEC via a Centronics
paralell port.  My platform consists of an AT clone connected to a PS-810
via a Centronics port.  Both copy and print techiniques were tried, as well
as telling Windows to treat the fonts as non permanent fonts to be downloaded
on the fly.  In all 3 cases on both platforms, the result was the same.
Just for grins, I guess I'll drive over there and try it again.



My original suspicion was that someone figured that it was wasteful of
interpreter time to have to wade through comments, so decided to filter
them out instantly.

Cheers
Woody