Path: utzoo!mnetor!uunet!husc6!mailrus!ames!pasteur!ucbvax!phoenix.cambridge.ac.UK!CET1 From: CET1@phoenix.cambridge.ac.UK Newsgroups: comp.lang.postscript Subject: When is PostScript not PostScript? Message-ID: <9E2CEEB7B39E9010@UK.AC.CAMBRIDGE.PHOENIX> Date: 6 Mar 88 15:12:22 GMT Sender: daemon@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU Organization: The Internet Lines: 39 (Third time lucky... I have been trying to send this message to info-postscript@edu.stanford.sushi (I know that's backwards for you USA types) but the uk.ac.ucl.cs.nss gateway seems to have a hate relationship with edu.stanford.sushi. I am trying edu.stanford.navajo instead. Apologies for the out-of-date'ness of the contents.) In article <1567@uhccux.UUCP> Greg Lee writes > PS code enclosed in braces is specified as compiled. That might mean > pseudo-compilation or compilation to machine code. I wrote a subset > implementation for PS, ... "Specified as compiled"? Not in the red book, it isn't! The braces generate an executable array, but you might never execute it. Also (unless you use setpacking) it is writable; it can be patched before being executed; or indeed changed each time. Yes, I know, that's the style of the self-modifying assembler hacker, but a real PostScript inplementation would have to allow for it, wouldn't it? There seem to be a lot of these subsets about... a little longer ago in article <19765.8801291430@vd.rl.ac.uk> Crispin Goswell wrote > This is to announce an independent implementation of the PostScript > page description language for previewing on graphics workstations. > ... > It is a complete implementation with the exception of > save and restore and readonly and executeonly. Well, I don't want to carp, but I can't imagine a serious PostScript application that wouldn't use save and restore. By the way, does anyone from Adobe watch this bulletin board these days? It seems a long time since we had a posting from them. Chris Thompson Cambridge University Computing Service JANET: cet1@uk.ac.cam.phx ARPA: cet1%phx.cam.ac.uk@nss.cs.ucl.ac.uk