[Gs-code-review] Re: [ ghostscript-Bugs-516379 ] .setsafe disables ViewerPreProcess

[Dan Coby]

Peter,

My comment:  The setpagedevice operator is not supposed to be cumulative.

was meant to be a rhetorical question with a question mark at the end.

Yes, I agree that the setpagedevice operator is supposed to be cumulative.
My real question is why are we losing the setting of the ViewerPreProcess
parameter?  Are there other situations in which parameter values are
being lost?

Dan


-----Original Message-----
From: L. Peter Deutsch [mailto:ghost at aladdin.com]
Sent: Tuesday, February 12, 2002 4:36 PM
To: dan at artifex.com
Cc: ray at artifex.com; gs-code-review at ghostscript.com
Subject: Re: [Gs-code-review] Re: [ ghostscript-Bugs-516379 ] .setsafe
disables ViewerPreProcess


> Let me ask an obvious question:  The setpagedevice operator is not
> supposed to be cumulative.  Is the .putdeviceparams operator different?
> Why is the ViewerPreProcess value being changed?

setpagedevice *is* cumulative according to the specification.  But because
of interactions between parameters, the PostScript code in gs_setpd.ps
always presents the *entire* set of parameters to .putdeviceparams -- i.e.,
it reads the current parameters, modifies the ones in the setpagedevice
dictionary, and then sets all of them at once.

-- 

L. Peter Deutsch     |    Aladdin Enterprises   |  203 Santa Margarita Ave.
ghost at aladdin.com    |  http://www.aladdin.com  |  Menlo Park, CA 94025

	The future of software is at http://www.opensource.org