Hi Arnd, On 22.05.06, Arnd Baecker wrote: > I think that this is more an effect of statistics - for example if I > generate a file with 3626 plots (of Husimi functions of a > quantum map - FWIW), then chances get pretty high that I will run > into the problem.
Absolutely. > > > > Beside that I'm thinking about removing the ASCIIHexDecode again. It's > > > > a quick hack and only implemented for current stream binary inserts > > > > (not for storring data on the PS stack and for the palette of indexed > > > > images). We should either remove it once and for all or implement it > > > > properly. I strong +1 for removing it ... :-) > > > > > > So what is the alternative to ASCIIHexDecode when one has > > > ghostscript < 8.54? > > > > What a question. > > Well, I just wanted to be sure that I don't miss a possible > alternative ;-) :-) > > The alternative is to update ghostscript to a > > version, which doesn't show the bug ... :-) > > Hmm, this might be an option for my own computer, and maybe one > (though with more effort ;-) for all the machines in our group. > However, I clearly cannot upgrade ghostscript on any of > the computers of potential readers of my articles. > > So therefore I would conclude that there is no alternative to > ASCIIHexDecode... Ok, yes. You're right. The point is taken. So the situation is now even worse than before. We know very well how to produce a PostScript file which is broken on almost all existing ghostscript installations ... and now??? We can create it to crash when sending it unmodified to ghostscript, or when its send by ghostview to the ghostscript interpreter ... as you wish ... > > The point is that we currently do not support the PSbinascii flag very > > well ... it's a hack (beside that it's not documented etc.) and we > > should get rid of it again ASAP (as we do now understand what was > > going wrong and since a proper solution). > > OTOH, this seems the only solution to the original problem > as long as one cannot be sure that all readers will have > ghostscript>=8.54, so I am not so positive on removing it. Right. Somehow this is bad ... and as we now know how to build such a file, we can even create one, which breaks ghostscript by sending it unchanged to the ghostscript interpreter. Damn ... I really don't know what we should do in such a situation. Using hex encoding instead of ASCII85 is that bad (in terms of almost doubling the file size for large bitmap junks; beside that we need to properly implement it) ... André -- by _ _ _ Dr. André Wobst / \ \ / ) [EMAIL PROTECTED], http://www.wobsta.de/ / _ \ \/\/ / PyX - High quality PostScript and PDF figures (_/ \_)_/\_/ with Python & TeX: visit http://pyx.sourceforge.net/ ------------------------------------------------------- Using Tomcat but need to do more? Need to support web services, security? Get stuff done quickly with pre-integrated technology to make your job easier Download IBM WebSphere Application Server v.1.0.1 based on Apache Geronimo http://sel.as-us.falkag.net/sel?cmd=lnk&kid=120709&bid=263057&dat=121642 _______________________________________________ PyX-user mailing list [email protected] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/pyx-user
