Article View: comp.lang.postscript
Article #891Re: Interesting Bug
From: C.E. Thompson on jenny
Date: Thu, 17 Aug 1989 17:40
Date: Thu, 17 Aug 1989 17:40
26 lines
1325 bytes
1325 bytes
In article <2106@optilink.UUCP>, cramer@optilink.UUCP (Clayton Cramer)
describes the infinite loop caused by
/L {L} def % ...
L
and in article <4079@shlump.nac.dec.com>, batcheldern@level.dec.com
(Ned Batchelder) explains how execstackoverflow is avoided by
PostScript's tail recursion removal (documented in the footnote
on page 41 of the Red Book, by the way).
It may be worth pointing out that there a couple of ways (at least)
of getting out of the loop, short of pulling the plug on the LW.
Firstly, if a job time limit has been set by 'setjobtime' (or the
eerom default has been set nonzero), then the timeout will be effective
in this situation. Alternatively, an ETX (ctrl/C) character on the
input port will generate at 'interrupt' error.
Of course, these techniques are equally effective with other loops,
such as
{} loop
Chris Thompson
JANET: cet1@uk.ac.cam.phx
Internet: cet1%phx.cam.ac.uk@nsfnet-relay.ac.uk
Technical Details
Message-ID:
<873@scaup.cl.cam.ac.uk>Path:
arc1-ca.pugleaf.net!utzoo!attcan!uunet!mcvax!ukc!cam-cl!cet1Show Full Headers
Complete Article Headers
Path: arc1-ca.pugleaf.net!utzoo!attcan!uunet!mcvax!ukc!cam-cl!cet1 From: cet1@cl.cam.ac.uk (C.E. Thompson on jenny) Newsgroups: comp.lang.postscript Subject: Re: Interesting Bug Message-ID: <873@scaup.cl.cam.ac.uk> Date: 17 Aug 89 17:40:05 GMT Sender: news@cl.cam.ac.uk Reply-To: cet1@cl.cam.ac.uk (C.E. Thompson) Organization: U of Cambridge Comp Lab, UK Lines: 26