>>>>> David Kastrup <d...@gnu.org> writes: >> 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. I infer from what you wrote that you don't have intent to fix the problem for yourself, at least for now. Right? Regards, Ikumi Keita _______________________________________________ bug-auctex mailing list bug-auctex@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-auctex
