Path: utzoo!attcan!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!samsung!olivea!uunet!chinacat!woody
From: woody@chinacat.Unicom.COM (Woody Baker @ Eagle Signal)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.postscript
Subject: Re: HP PS Cart Fatal Blowup Demo
Summary: well, it was spot function
	 investigation.
Message-ID: <1762@chinacat.Unicom.COM>
Date: 18 Dec 90 04:50:59 GMT
References: <1990Dec8.145818.15028@panix.uucp> <1990Dec13.223822.28328@wsrcc.com> <369@heaven.woodside.ca.us>
Organization: a guest of Unicom Systems Development, Austin
Lines: 19

In article <369@heaven.woodside.ca.us>, glenn@heaven.woodside.ca.us (Glenn Reid) writes:
> In article <1990Dec13.223822.28328@wsrcc.com> wolfgang@wsrcc.com (Wolfgang S. Rupprecht) writes:
> 
> I've never seen any PostScript code that actually executed painting
> operators inside the procedure passed to "setscreen".  Most interesting.
> I can't think of why you'd want to do that, offhand, but it's sort of

I believe that Don told me that this happened when he wrote some stuff
to explore the set screen operator.  Either he was trying to make the
spot function to something funny, or else (I think the latter, if I
remember right) was trying to print out the patterns that the setscreen
was using, only expanded.  It is indeed unusual, but there is nothing in
the language definition to prevent it.

Don certainly fools around a lot, but generaly, he has a specific objective
when he does so.  I'll find out just what he was doing. :=}

Cheers
Woody