Path: utzoo!censor!geac!torsqnt!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!samsung!munnari.oz.au!csc.anu.oz.au!csis!ken
From: ken@csis.dit.csiro.au (Ken Yap)
Newsgroups: comp.text.tex
Subject: Re: Why not change METAFONT to produce pk fonts?
Message-ID: <1990Nov27.014439.19103@csis.dit.csiro.au>
Date: 27 Nov 90 01:44:39 GMT
References: <527@van-bc.wimsey.bc.ca> <1990Nov25.194312.16829@wsrcc.com> <47572@eerie.acsu.Buffalo.EDU>
Organization: CSIRO Division of Information Technology
Lines: 13

>Ok, then, how about having PK be the default output format, and having
>a switch for GF format output?  Since PK format is used by almost
>everything, I wouldn't think that this is too far fetched.  And when
>one is building hundreds of fonts, it would (IMHO) save a lot of time
>and make a lot of sense to create the correct format in one pass.

In my *experience* the time for the gftopk conversion was a tiny
fraction of the time spent by metafont. If it bothers you that it
takes two passes, why just write a wrapper program to call mf, then
gftopk then you don't see the stuff under the bonnet. :-)

Sure one pass is neater, but it's this way because pk was designed
after mf and gf.  It's also not an issue worth worrying about.