On Wed, Apr 8, 2009, Mark Polesky <markpole...@yahoo.com> said: Would reducing ps excess reduce compilation > time? Or would the difference be negligible?
PS code is not usually compiled, it is transmitted, parsed, and executed. Adobes manuals make it clear that the defined operators are deliberatly given long spelledout names for clarity of semantics and efficient use would include the use of private suites of operators, even if only to provide concise aliases for the most used operators. Several of the early Macintosh PS-aware applications took advantage of this to some degree, including the Laserwriter print driver. One of my projects used Deluxe Music Construction Set as a WYSIWIG front end to produce EPSF of short musical excerpts for inclusion in a MS Word produced DMA defense document. Printing to disk gave me files of PS code which included several fonts as well as the illustration code. Original files were about a megabyte in length, final EPSF was usualy less than a kilobyte; a good thing because Word had an unadvertised limit (even second echelon TS didnt know about it) for how much PS code you could have on a page. -- Dana Emery _______________________________________________ lilypond-devel mailing list lilypond-devel@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
