🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <1992Aug6.142933.25821@iscnvx.lmsc.lockheed.com>, gary@iscnvx.lmsc.lockheed.com (Gary Henderson) writes:
>carl@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU (Carl J Lydick) writes: : In article
><3669@ecicrl.ocunix.on.ca>, clewis@ferret.ocunix.on.ca (Chris Lewis) writes: :
>>In article <1992Aug2.001052.23580@cco.caltech.edu> carl@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU
>>writes:
>: >|In article <3668@ecicrl.ocunix.on.ca>, clewis@ferret.ocunix.on.ca
>: >|(Chris Lewis) writes:
>: >|>Almost all applications use this convention.  Though, there are some
>: >|>stupid broken ones.  Ie: WP apparently leads files with <control-D>%!.
>: >
>: >|Which is, in my opinion, a reasonable thing to do, as it's the only way to
>: >|guarantee that the previous PostScript program has ended before yours
>: >|starts.
>
>Sorry to jump into the middle of a thread, but starting a file with
><control-D>%! is NOT a reasonable thing to do.  The purpose of the %! at the
>beginning of the file is to create a signature in the first 16 bits that
>identifies the file as a PostScript fille.  If the file starts with
><control-D>%!, the first 16 bits are based on <control-D>%, not %!, and the
>signature is therefore not one of a PostScript file, conforming or otherwise
>(see pg 265 of edition 1 of the Red Book).

Sorry, but that's just more UNIX magic-number bullshit.  For your information,
UNIX is NOT the only operating system in the world.

>A print spooler intelligent enough
>to interpret and act on this signature would not pass the file to the printer
>as PostScript source, but would interpret it differently, perhaps printing it
>as a text file.  PC-type printer drivers may not use the signature and make the
>distinction, but more sophisticated drivers will.
>
>Now, on to the question at hand...
>
>Pg 174 of the Green Book (PostScript Language Program Design, by Adobe Systems,
>Inc):
>
>The batch job model under which PostScript printers normally operate is founded
>on individual print files.  That is, a single job is defined from the initial
>byte through the final end-of-file indication.  The end-of-file (EOF) should
>*never* be contained in the document file itself; it is part of the
>communication dynamics.  In fact, the EOF marker for, say, a serial port is
>much different than the EOF indication on a packet network.

As I said before, *IF* you can count on the print spooler to always do the
right thing, then there's no excuse for an application to put the EOF character
in the file.  But you *CAN'T* always count on the queue manager to do that for
you.  Next time, why don't you try responding to what I said?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Carl J Lydick | INTERnet: CARL@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU | NSI/HEPnet: SOL1::CARL

Disclaimer:  Hey, I understand VAXen and VMS.  That's what I get paid for.  My
understanding of astronomy is purely at the amateur level (or below).  So
unless what I'm saying is directly related to VAX/VMS, don't hold me or my
organization responsible for it.  If it IS related to VAX/VMS, you can try to
hold me responsible for it, but my organization had nothing to do with it.