ghost@aladdin.com (L. Peter Deutsch) (01/11/91)
The quasi-definition of defineuserobject on p. 400 of the PostScript
Language Reference Manual (Second Edition) is:
userdict /UserObjects get
3 -1 roll put
Am I right in thinking that the second line should be
3 1 roll put
?
L. Peter Deutsch :: Aladdin Enterprises :: P.O. box 60264, Palo Alto, CA 94306
ghost@aladdin.com ; {uunet,sun,decwrl}!parcplace!aladdin!ghost ; (415)329-0264
"Implementation is the sincerest form of flattery."taft@adobe.com (Ed Taft) (01/13/91)
In article <43.UUL1.3#5127@aladdin.com> ghost@aladdin.com (L. Peter Deutsch) writes: >The quasi-definition of defineuserobject on p. 400 of the PostScript >Language Reference Manual (Second Edition) is: > > userdict /UserObjects get > 3 -1 roll put > >Am I right in thinking that the second line should be > > 3 1 roll put Right you are! Interestingly, this error is also in the Display PostScript System Reference manual, but nobody has ever noticed it. As far as I know, this is the first substantive error anyone has found in the new red book (though we've already spotted dozens of nits). Perhaps Adobe should award you some sort of prize. Ed Taft taft@adobe.com ...decwrl!adobe!taft
paisley@mte.ncsu.edu (01/16/91)
In article <9969@adobe.UUCP> taft@adobe.com (Ed Taft) writes: >As far as I know, this is the first substantive error anyone has found in >the new red book (though we've already spotted dozens of nits). Perhaps >Adobe should award you some sort of prize. > >Ed Taft taft@adobe.com ...decwrl!adobe!taft > Perhaps you should institute the system Don Knuth used for TeX some years ago. He paid $0.01 for the first error, $0.02 for the second, doubling the reward for each new bug discovered. Of course you must have great confidence in the quality of the system or you can get into trouble. Knuth himself has done pretty well, last I heard the prize was only up to $20.48 (or maybe $40.96), and this is after some 10-12 years, I think. Mike Paisley paisley@mte.ncsu.edu PAISLEY@NCSUMTE.BITNET (919) 737-7781
cet1@cl.cam.ac.uk (C.E. Thompson) (01/16/91)
In article <1991Jan15.173727.20580@ncsuvx.ncsu.edu> paisley@mte.ncsu.edu writes: >Perhaps you should institute the system Don Knuth used for TeX some years ago. >He paid $0.01 for the first error, $0.02 for the second, doubling the reward >for each new bug discovered. Of course you must have great confidence in the >quality of the system or you can get into trouble. Knuth himself has done >pretty well, last I heard the prize was only up to $20.48 (or maybe $40.96), >and this is after some 10-12 years, I think. > Actually, the rewards for finding bugs in TeX have never worked like that; they double in size each year (usually), regardless of how many bugs were found in that year. The rate was $327.68 last year, but I don't know whether Don intends to double it again this year. Of course, this is for bugs in the program TeX, you get something much smaller (maybe $20.48) for bugs in the TeXbook. Now if Adobe would pay for bugs in their PostScript interpreters, we could all be rich :-) :-) :-) Chris Thompson JANET: cet1@uk.ac.cam.phx Internet: cet1%phx.cam.ac.uk@nsfnet-relay.ac.uk