[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: PostScript wrappers

From: Chris B. Vetter
Subject: Re: PostScript wrappers
Date: Tue, 20 Jan 2004 15:46:23 -0800

On Tue, 20 Jan 2004 15:39:54 -0700
Adam Fedor <address@hidden> wrote:
> > Yes, I thought so. But in this case, does it even make much sense to
> > have the <instance>_PSWRAP_FILES 'command' in -make if it cannot be
> > properly/completely supported?
> Probably not.

Would be handy to have around in case of porting, though.

> > Wouldn't it suffice to check the headers in -dgs and try to
> > implement the functions as wrappers to what we already have in
> > -back?
> I'm not sure I understand, but for example, look at a really simple
> psw function:

Well, I know there already are some of the DPS-functions around, but
apparently not all of them. Otherwise I would have succeeded in porting
the framework.

> Sure you could say that helps since pswrap has already parsed the 
> function and we ONLY need to implement DPSBinObjSeqWrite to read in

And that's one function the linker was bitching about...

> the tokens and call the correct functions. Still that's an awful lot
> of work compared to just telling the developer to rewrite the psw
> function in C. Try for instance, trying to write something that will
> interpret this slightly more complicated psw function:

The problem would be that you would have to know how, especially if
you're trying to port. I for one don't know diddly squat about (D)PS...


reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]