Re: Strange behavior of "root" in "over"'s context

[Giovanni Zezza]

Il Fri, 31 Dec 1999 20:42:03 +0300, Valeriy E. Ushakov scriveva:

>Precisely because of the absense of side-effects.

This sounds a bit strange to a Perl addict like me, but I think I can
understand your point. ;-)

>Tell that to people that want PDF output from Lout and want graphics
>in PDF and don't want to mess with distillation (e.g. in a CGI
>script). ;-)

This has nothing to do with *output*. PostScript would be simply (well, not
so simply) the internal graphic language of Lout. From that you could get
whatever you want (in a single passage too, if you want).
You have to have some sort of a graphic language or tool; if I correctly
understand this is something even Jeff Kingston agree about, in a way. I
say, let's be it PostScript.
You may not like chimeras, but you already have a sort of them. You may
throw it away and write a pure Lout set of graphic functions, or regularize
your position with a (to be hoped) happy marriage and go on with it. Take
your choice.

>Do you have any specific scenario in mind where this is potentially
>useful?

Not so many, admittedly (out of the chimera-scenario above); you can think,
though, at every situation when would be useful having Lout knowing what
was presently done in PostScript; objects dimensions and positions, at
least.

>PS: Well, let me now put my list-maintainer's hat on and wish everyone
>    happy New Year!

To you too.

Ciao.