I put dillo through nm, and I saw a bunch of Fl_Paged_Device, Fl_PostScript_Printer, T Fl_PostScript_File_Device in there. I didn't pay any attention when they were all enthusiastic about printer support for a while there. Is there a justifiable reason that this gets pulled in, as opposed to an oversight on their part when #ifdef'ing or something?
I wrote:
I put dillo through nm, and I saw a bunch of Fl_Paged_Device, Fl_PostScript_Printer, T Fl_PostScript_File_Device in there.
I didn't pay any attention when they were all enthusiastic about printer support for a while there. Is there a justifiable reason that this gets pulled in, as opposed to an oversight on their part when #ifdef'ing or something?
Turns out there's a if (Fl_Surface_Device::surface()->class_name() == Fl_Printer::class_id) in Fl_Text_Display.cxx that pulls it all in. I'll have to ask them whether there's a reasonable way for them to do something about this someday...
On Sat, May 28, 2011 at 01:57:23AM +0000, corvid wrote:
I wrote:
I put dillo through nm, and I saw a bunch of Fl_Paged_Device, Fl_PostScript_Printer, T Fl_PostScript_File_Device in there.
I didn't pay any attention when they were all enthusiastic about printer support for a while there. Is there a justifiable reason that this gets pulled in, as opposed to an oversight on their part when #ifdef'ing or something?
Turns out there's a
if (Fl_Surface_Device::surface()->class_name() == Fl_Printer::class_id)
in Fl_Text_Display.cxx that pulls it all in. I'll have to ask them whether there's a reasonable way for them to do something about this someday...
Ah, now I get your point... Would be nice indeed if we could get rid of the Fl_Printer stuff as long as we don't use it. Cheers, Johannes
On Sat, 28 May 2011 05:25:30 -0400, Johannes Hofmann <Johannes.Hofmann@gmx.de> wrote:
Ah, now I get your point... Would be nice indeed if we could get rid of the Fl_Printer stuff as long as we don't use it.
Cheers, Johannes
Alternately, we could keep it in and start using it. :-) ~Benjamin
I wrote:
I wrote:
I put dillo through nm, and I saw a bunch of Fl_Paged_Device, Fl_PostScript_Printer, T Fl_PostScript_File_Device in there.
I didn't pay any attention when they were all enthusiastic about printer support for a while there. Is there a justifiable reason that this gets pulled in, as opposed to an oversight on their part when #ifdef'ing or something?
Turns out there's a
if (Fl_Surface_Device::surface()->class_name() == Fl_Printer::class_id)
in Fl_Text_Display.cxx that pulls it all in. I'll have to ask them whether there's a reasonable way for them to do something about this someday...
In http://fltk.org/newsgroups.php?s23982+gfltk.general+v23991+T0 , Domingo Alvarez Duarte made a suggestion that seems to work fine for me. Patch attached.
On Sun, Jun 19, 2011 at 12:11:37AM +0000, corvid wrote:
I wrote:
I wrote:
I put dillo through nm, and I saw a bunch of Fl_Paged_Device, Fl_PostScript_Printer, T Fl_PostScript_File_Device in there.
I didn't pay any attention when they were all enthusiastic about printer support for a while there. Is there a justifiable reason that this gets pulled in, as opposed to an oversight on their part when #ifdef'ing or something?
Turns out there's a
if (Fl_Surface_Device::surface()->class_name() == Fl_Printer::class_id)
in Fl_Text_Display.cxx that pulls it all in. I'll have to ask them whether there's a reasonable way for them to do something about this someday...
In http://fltk.org/newsgroups.php?s23982+gfltk.general+v23991+T0 , Domingo Alvarez Duarte made a suggestion that seems to work fine for me. Patch attached.
Please commit with a comment on its purpose (to avoid linking in unused code). BTW, it'd be great if we could play a bit with printing to check how close/far we are from having the feature. -- Cheers Jorge.-
On Fri, May 27, 2011 at 10:16:38PM +0000, corvid wrote:
I put dillo through nm, and I saw a bunch of Fl_Paged_Device, Fl_PostScript_Printer, T Fl_PostScript_File_Device in there.
I didn't pay any attention when they were all enthusiastic about printer support for a while there. Is there a justifiable reason that this gets pulled in, as opposed to an oversight on their part when #ifdef'ing or something?
It's part of fltk-1.3: http://fltk.org/doc-1.3/classFl__Device.html I never tried it, but it should be possible to draw to a Fl_PostScript_Graphics_Driver just as drawing to the screen. OTOH it would also be simple enough to write dw::core::View that outputs Postscript. I'm not sure what would be the way to go if we want to add printing support. Cheers, Johannes
participants (4)
-
corvid＠lavabit.com -
jcid＠dillo.org -
Johannes.Hofmann＠gmx.de -
obeythepenguin＠gmail.com