Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!rutgers!cs.utexas.edu!execu!sequoia!rpp386!woody From: woody@rpp386.cactus.org (Woodrow Baker) Newsgroups: comp.lang.postscript Subject: Re: Compiled PostScript Summary: right, sort of Message-ID: <17533@rpp386.cactus.org> Date: 3 Jan 90 01:59:15 GMT References: <1666@intercon.com> Organization: River Parishes Programming, Plano, TX Lines: 23 In article <1666@intercon.com>, amanda@mermaid.intercon.com (Amanda Walker) writes: > In article <17518@rpp386.cactus.org>, woody@rpp386.cactus.org (Woodrow Baker) > > Oh, come on. Sure you could write a PostScript compiler in PostScript. > As you are so fond of saying, PostScript is a real computer language... > Don Hopkins has written a pretty nifty PostScript debugger in PostScript, > the heart of which is a PostScript interpreter written in PostScript. > > The problem is what to generate as output. sure enough. The real problem with trying to do anything in 68000 is the total lack of public information about CEXEC, and how to structure assembly language files so that the relocation info is right. > > I doubt it would be of any practical use, since, at least on printers with Come, come now, you just gave a perfect examply of a practical use for it. (see the paragraph above) > > Amanda Walker > InterCon Systems Corporation Cheers Woody