glasgow@yale-zoo-suned.yalecs.edu (Jason R. Glasgow) (10/18/89)
Is there any way to redefine the fill operator? If it is possible, then is it possible to look at the original code for fill? And finally i is fill written in machine code or postscript? Thanks for any information. -Jason Glasgow -- +----------------+----------------------------------------------------------+ | Jason Glasgow | bitnet: glasgow@yalecs.bitnet uucp: ...!yale!glasgow | | | internet: glasgow@cs.yale.edu voicenet: 203-436-1437 | +----------------+----------------------------------------------------------+
rsilverman@eagle.wesleyan.edu (10/19/89)
In article <GLASGOW.89Oct17165136@yale-zoo-suned.yalecs.edu>, glasgow@yale-zoo-suned.yalecs.edu (Jason R. Glasgow) writes: > Is there any way to redefine the fill operator? If it is possible, > then is it possible to look at the original code for fill? And finally i > is fill written in machine code or postscript? > > Thanks for any information. > > -Jason Glasgow Jason, You cannot replace the built-in fill operator, but you can redefine it with your own procedure of the same name in userdict, if you want. As long as the code you are trying to trick calls the procedure by name, rather than extract the built-in operator directly from systemdict, it will work. In all implementations I have seen, fill is a primitive, so there's no way to examine it without disassembling the printer ROMs, or, in the case of Adobe's interpreters, using undocumented, encrypted features. Richard Silverman arpa: rsilverman@eagle.wesleyan.edu Systems Engineer bitnet: rsilverman@wesleyan.bitnet AM Computer Products CIS: [72727,453] Southington, CT 06489