On 2010-02-19, at 11:29 AM, t wrote: > On Fri, Feb 19, 2010 at 3:44 PM, Christiaan Hofman <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> On Feb 19, 2010, at 15:28, Marc H. Scholl wrote: >> >>> >>> On 19.02.2010, at 14:37h, t wrote (with possible deletions): >>> >>>> [...] >>> >>>> Yes- I suspect it wont do any good either. You might be better filing >>>> a bug report against emacs- I would guess the issue is something to do >>>> with fonts where the apple system is a bit different to ghostscript- >>>> perhaps the emacs guys can easily fix it to work on osx? >>>> >>>> regards >>> >>> >>> ... actually a very good comment, especially, since the original post was >>> talking about *Aquamacs*, a Mac-only version of emacs. It should be a peace >>> of cake for them to make the ps-print suitable for preview/skim. >>> >>> --Marc >> >> Aquamacs already does this. In fact, it does not expose the PS print >> functions, but instead a print function that sends PDF for printing to >> Preview. >> >> BTW, I cannot reproduce it. When I try something like ps-spool-buffer, I >> have no problems with the generated PS. But perhaps when you're using >> non-standard fonts, I can imagine that this indeed is a problem. When fonts >> are not included in the PS (and it seems that the ps-print-... and >> ps-spool-... functions indeed don't include them), then the PS is not >> guaranteed to be readable, and I can imagine that Apple's CoreGraphics >> conversion API (which is what Skim and almost certainly Preview and the >> pstopdf CLT use) cannot find some non-standard fonts. I don't think that >> would qualify of a bug of either tools, but I would rather blame the PS >> generator than Apple. I don't know if fonts is the problem, but I cannot >> imagine it's in the PS that's used itself, because the PS syntax is pretty >> much fixed (unlike PDF, which keeps being messed with by Adobe, and is much >> more messy than PS as a result). >> >> Christiaan >> >> > > I can reproduce the problem here (osx 10.6) using whatever the default > font settings are (since I haven't changed them)- if I use > emacs/aquamacs ps-spool-* functions and apple's pstopdf then I get a > pdf with no (visible) text. Its not clear (to me) who's at fault- but > the likelihood of apple patching their pstopdf is v.v.small- besides > there are lots of tools which do the same job (like enscript) and work > perfectly well on osx- so your best bet is to ask the emacs guys to > fix their psprint code to work with osx. > > By the way, Aquamacs has another way to print 'M-x aquamacs-print' > which uses another method and brings up the apple print dialog so you > can 'Save to PDF'. Use this, or ghostscript to produce your pdf's if > the other ways don't work. > > regards, >
Perhaps I should explain what I set out to do. I still occasionally print out source code. I know this identifies me as an old timer, since hardly any of the programmers I know ever look at hardcopy. However, on rare occasion I still do so. And, I liked the headers/footers that the emacs ps-* stuff did. The aquamacs print does not provide such a thing, as far as I know. Thus, I tried ps-* + Skim. (I really like Skim and always use it to look at pdf in preference to Preview. I always use it with TeX.) This morning I set out to do a standalone program that uses Apple's CGPSConverter calls to see whether the callbacks would report any problems with postscript created by aquamacs. So far I have not succeeded; I have not done any objc or c programming in many moons and seem to have lost the knack. It may not report anything interesting anyway. I'll plug away and see if I can get it to work. I appreciate that there are other ways to skin this cat, e.g. with ghostscript. However, I think there is something fundamentally interesting here, for me at least. As I said in an earlier post on this thread, if Apple s/w is broken, that's interesting. If aquamacs/emacs is producing bad postscript, that's interesting too, although not to the Skim crowd probably. More important, from a Skim point of view, is it ok that the Apple's postscript conversion api/utility *silently* produces a file with no text? If the postscript is bad, should there not be some error reporting of this? - Phil - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Download Intel® Parallel Studio Eval Try the new software tools for yourself. Speed compiling, find bugs proactively, and fine-tune applications for parallel performance. See why Intel Parallel Studio got high marks during beta. http://p.sf.net/sfu/intel-sw-dev _______________________________________________ Skim-app-users mailing list [email protected] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/skim-app-users
