🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <98@snll-arpagw.UUCP> paolucci@snll-arpagw.UUCP (Sam Paolucci) writes:
>Thus it appears to me that in a PC world where access to the serial
>device is easy and transparent, the only option is for the application
>program to append a ^D to the end of the PostScript output.  This
>guarantees that the file will be handled properly whether it is
>redirected to the serial device, or later copied to it.

And it guarantees that the file will not be handled properly when it
goes anywhere else.  The PC model of a printer as just a place to put
bytes, with no beginning or end, does not match a PostScript printer's
idea of a "job", which requires an end of file.

A PostScript printer is a serial device, and should have ^D appended by
the application if opened directly.  But if the application is writing
to a file, it should not put ^D in, because it is part of the serial
protocol, not part of the file.

Yes, you can copy a file to LPT1:, but you can also copy EOF.PS to
LPT1:, too.  In fact, you can roll both of these into a two-line batch
file.

Basically, whoever sends the file to the printer puts on the final cap
of an EOF indication.

I know that it's easier to simplify it down into only doing one thing.
But it isn't a very difficult premise, and is downright trivial when
compared to the complexity of writing a PostScript language driver to
begin with.  And it behaves so much better with other software,
spoolers, networks, and distributed printing models of all kinds.  No
pointing shooting yourself in your distributed printing foot, it seems
to me.

Glenn Again.