Stefan Monnier <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: >>>> Sigh. Seems like a magic string for the "TeXshop" TeX editor. But I >>>> think just ruling out [VT] is still asking for trouble. >>> I think a bug report to the TeXshop is in order. >> Uh, you people are joking, right? > > Nope! > >> It is not a bug in TeXshop if Emacs' magic-mode-alist goes out of control >> and calls everything "PostScript". > > The %! thingy is not Emacs's invention. It's how postscript was > specified.
The only relevant standard I can find starts off with "%!PS-Adobe". In contrast, %! is far too generic to be useful. It may be a heuristic for a PostScript interpreter to decide whether it is getting fed PostScript on stdin. But it does not sound like a useful heuristic for a text editor to decide whether a named file contains PostScript code or anything else. > And for that reason `file greek-utf8.tex' agrees with Emacs. > > This said, I'd be happy to see the %! entry removed from > magic-mode-alist, because I think magic-mode-alist should really be > kept to its absolute strictest minimum. I don't think that "%!PS" has comparable potential to do accidental harm. Whether it does noticeable good is a different question altogether. However, dvips -i produces PostScript files where the extension is replaced by a serial number. Those will not be recognized as PostScript without magic number detection. "%!PS" is completely sufficient for that purpose, however. I think that little except hand-crafted PostScript would ever start with "%!" alone, and hand-crafted PostScript will have a proper file name. Even if one uses dvips -N (which disabled structured comments) the file starts with %!PS (but not EPSF; comments have been disabled) So I think that "%!PS" _does_ have some usefulness, and it is clearly not as overboard as "%!". -- David Kastrup -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
