Article View: comp.lang.postscript
Article #8771Re: Compiled PostScript
From: Amanda Walker
Date: Tue, 09 Jan 1990 16:38
Date: Tue, 09 Jan 1990 16:38
21 lines
1496 bytes
1496 bytes
In article <Jan.9.03.18.12.1990.1470@busboys.rutgers.edu>, gaynor@busboys.rutgers.edu (Silver) writes: > Seeing your light, I > realize that this is probably the biggest drawback in the language. The > dynamic lookup I can live with. This? Maybe not... Well, it is my biggest gripe (see, Woody, I'm not completely an Adobe cheerleader :-)). I don't find dynamic binding quite so annoying, since I'm used to it from Lisp, and it can be very useful. Also, the facts that you can (a) explicitly manipulate dynamic binding environments and (b) use the "bind" operator to look things up in the current environment stack at definition time mean that it's not as limiting as it could otherwise be (cf. the NeWS object extensions, which can be implemented in vanilla PostScript). I do agree that it is a pretty fun little language, though; much nicer than Forth, for example... Amanda Walker InterCon Systems Corporation --
Technical Details
Message-ID:
<1696@intercon.com>Path:
arc1-ca.pugleaf.net!utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!clyde.concordia.ca!uunet!intercon!newsReferences:
<POLLACK.89Dec4133944@toto.cis.ohio-state.edu> <1666@intercon.com> <1683@intercon.com> <17581@rpp386.cactus.org> <1690@intercon.com> <Jan.9.03.18.12.1990.1470@busboys.rutgers.edu>Show Full Headers
Complete Article Headers
Path: arc1-ca.pugleaf.net!utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!clyde.concordia.ca!uunet!intercon!news From: amanda@mermaid.intercon.com (Amanda Walker) Newsgroups: comp.lang.postscript Subject: Re: Compiled PostScript Message-ID: <1696@intercon.com> Date: 9 Jan 90 16:38:26 GMT References: <POLLACK.89Dec4133944@toto.cis.ohio-state.edu> <1666@intercon.com> <1683@intercon.com> <17581@rpp386.cactus.org> <1690@intercon.com> <Jan.9.03.18.12.1990.1470@busboys.rutgers.edu> Sender: news@intercon.com Reply-To: amanda@mermaid.intercon.com (Amanda Walker) Lines: 21