🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <1992Nov7.065504@eklektix.com> rcd@raven.eklektix.com (Dick Dunn) writes:

>It is easy to understand why an application writer might think "well, just
>to be safe, I'll generate an end-of-job marker at the beginning of the
>job."  But it's not safe; more to the point it's not innocuous.  An empty
>job may not be a "no-op".  Adobe has taken some pains to discourage tossing
>in gratuitous ^D for some time now.

The correct way to discourage this would be to provide a defined and
acceptable operator that an application could use to indicate that
"this is the start of a new job" with the implicit effect of putting
a printer in a sane state (i.e. equivalent to after receiving ^D or EOF).
This operator could then easily be redefined by programs that expect
to include other postscript objects just as showpage is now.  Until
this happens, there is no correct way to handle all situations, and
I'd bet that there are a lot more DOS/Windows applications directly
controlling postscript printers today than there are printers being
fed by spoolers that know about adding ^D's.

Les Mikesell
  les@chinet.chi.il.us