Article View: comp.lang.postscript
Article #3270Re: transfer function (was Re: Help!)
From: Kenneth Porter
Date: Thu, 04 Oct 1990 18:37
Date: Thu, 04 Oct 1990 18:37
26 lines
1202 bytes
1202 bytes
Actually, I think you want to put the old transfer function at
the *end* of the new transfer procedure to get the right
effect, since there's no guarantee that the two procedures are
commutative:
/newstuff { .... } def
% remember to disable packing so put can write into executable array
false setpacking % real code should save current packing state
{ newstuff 0 exec } dup 1 currenttransfer put settransfer
The resulting transfer proc is
{ newstuff <oldtransfer> exec }
Is currenttransfer a variable or an operator? If an operator, then the
following doesn't work:
{ currenttransfer } bind
If it's a variable, then you can just do this:
{ //currenttransfer exec }
Ken (shiva@well.sf.ca.us)
Technical Details
Message-ID:
<20947@well.sf.ca.us>Path:
arc1-ca.pugleaf.net!utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!wuarchive!julius.cs.uiuc.edu!apple!well!shivaReferences:
<JWZ.90Sep13112918@kolyma.lucid.com> <20829@well.sf.ca.us> <JWZ.90Sep28201446@kolyma.lucid.com>Show Full Headers
Complete Article Headers
Path: arc1-ca.pugleaf.net!utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!wuarchive!julius.cs.uiuc.edu!apple!well!shiva From: shiva@well.sf.ca.us (Kenneth Porter) Newsgroups: comp.lang.postscript Subject: Re: transfer function (was Re: Help!) Summary: settransfer not commutative Message-ID: <20947@well.sf.ca.us> Date: 4 Oct 90 18:37:16 GMT References: <JWZ.90Sep13112918@kolyma.lucid.com> <20829@well.sf.ca.us> <JWZ.90Sep28201446@kolyma.lucid.com> Lines: 26