James E. Bailey wrote:
This would be a bad idea from my point of view, because in order to generate a pdf
that's on a non-standard sheet of paper, I must use the postscript, so not having that
file would make it impossible for me to generate a file that prints on, say,
9"x12" paper.
On Friday, January 12, 2007, at 02:42PM, "Laura Conrad" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
Han-Wen> No, the PDF is produced from the PS. The PS uses an
Han-Wen> embedded CFF font that is binary data. You'd have to
Han-Wen> check out the Postscript standard to see what printers
Han-Wen> can handle this.
But if we aren't going to consider it a bug when the postscript file
doesn't print, shouldn't we treat it as a temporary file and delete it
for the user instead of leaving it there? I used to usually print the
postscript files, and I still forget and try to do it sometimes, and
it doesn't work with my current printer.
James, please do not top-post unless you are certain it is appropriate.
It makes discussions like this quite confusing.
Anybody who wants to play tricks with ps files (and I am occasionally
one of them) is free to invoke lilypond --ps, so this is a red herring.
I agree with Laura: we should treat the .ps files are temporary and
delete them. I have a script that does this automatically, but I think
that deleting the .ps files is a good default option. Most users don't
want ps, and many users who investigate the ps files won't know how to
deal with them properly. Anybody who really wants a ps file can invoke
with --ps.
Cheers,
- Graham
_______________________________________________
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
