🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <GLASGOW.89Oct17165136@yale-zoo-suned.yalecs.edu>, glasgow@yale-zoo-suned.yalecs.edu (Jason R. Glasgow) writes:
> Is there any way to redefine the fill operator? If it is possible,
> then is it possible to look at the original code for fill? And finally i
> is fill written in machine code or postscript?
> 
> Thanks for any information.
> 
> -Jason Glasgow

Jason,

	You cannot replace the built-in fill operator, but you can redefine it
with your own procedure of the same name in userdict, if you want.  As long as
the code you are trying to trick calls the procedure by name, rather than
extract the built-in operator directly from systemdict, it will work.

	In all implementations I have seen, fill is a primitive, so there's no
way to examine it without disassembling the printer ROMs, or, in the case of
Adobe's interpreters, using undocumented, encrypted features.

                                                Richard Silverman

arpa:	rsilverman@eagle.wesleyan.edu           Systems Engineer
bitnet:	rsilverman@wesleyan.bitnet              AM Computer Products
CIS:	[72727,453]                             Southington, CT 06489