Ikumi Keita <[email protected]> writes: > Hi David, > >>>>>> David Kastrup <[email protected]> writes: >> The usual "oh, we decided change is good and clobbered over the previous >> API." Presumably one of the listed hooks can be used instead, possibly >> mimicking what the mentioned patch does to lib/pdf2dsc.ps . > > Are you thinking that it isn't fruitful to follow up the development of > ghostscript every time incompatible change is introduced?
No since the changes tend to be completely arbitrary. It's absolutely not fruitful but exasperating. That doesn't mean that it's not necessary. In this particular case, this is partly related to _not_ using GhostScript as PDF interpreter but instead using pdftodsc and then working with the resulting not-quite-standard PostScript. This minimises the amount of knowledge and code required to make this work but necessitates working with interfaces of Ghostscript that its developers feel no obligation to provide some consistency for. Changing the operation in a manner foregoing pdftodsc would likely make preview-latex less vulnerable to this kind of recurring API change. -- David Kastrup _______________________________________________ bug-auctex mailing list [email protected] https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-auctex
