Path: utzoo!attcan!lsuc!eci386!jmm
From: jmm@eci386.uucp (John Macdonald)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.postscript
Subject: Re: copypage on duplex printers
Message-ID: <1990Dec18.175400.19088@eci386.uucp>
Date: 18 Dec 90 17:54:00 GMT
References: <1019@quiddity.queensu.CA> <1734@chinacat.Unicom.COM> <9184@adobe.UUCP> <1760@chinacat.Unicom.COM>
Reply-To: jmm@eci386.UUCP (John Macdonald)
Organization: Elegant Communications, Inc.
Lines: 23

In article <1760@chinacat.Unicom.COM> woody@chinacat.Unicom.COM (Woody Baker @ Eagle Signal) writes:
|In article <9184@adobe.UUCP>, gelphman@adobe.COM (David Gelphman) writes:
|> 
|> I believe this is the behavior that most PostScript programmers expect and
|
|Just for grins, let's take a poll on this one.

It's a breath/candy mint.

These are two different interpretations, useful in different
ways.  The "each face is built from the previous" allows you
to do incremental activites (allowing a sort of time-lapse
photography).  The "each two-faced page is built from the
previous" allows easy duplication (or near duplication).  I
would find Woody's method more often useful, but neither is
really what is best.  I agree with David's comment that the
most useful is a form type, where a page is built on a previously
defined form (one of many, which allows you to do either type
of activity argued about above).  Of course you might run into
memory problems if you define too many forms...
-- 
Cure the common code...                      | John Macdonald
...Ban Basic      - Christine Linge          |   jmm@eci386