Re: Possible problem with Gnus

[Andy Tai]

Hi, I would be glad to develop such an interfce; I
believe ghostscript should have most infrasturcture in
place already.  I cannot promise on a time fr
Thanks,

Andy 
--- Richard Stallman <address@hidden> wrote:
> Andy, we have been talking about problems in Emacs
> code
> to display postscript in the middle of a document.
> 
>     >     The sane thing to do is to serialize the
> whole GhostScript
>     >     operation to have at most one GhostScript
> process running, and
>     >     to not restart this process as long as
> images remain to be
>     >     rendered.
>     > 
>     > That does sound desirable.  However,
>     > 
>     >       For this to work, one has to stop
> passing the information
>     >     through an XPixMap but has to go through a
> file or pipe.
>     > 
>     > Using a pixmap is preferable, in general.  Why
> do you think
>     > using a single Ghostscript process is
> incompatible with using
>     > a pixmap?
> 
>     Because the interface to GhostScript that is
> used for passing the
>     XPixMap Id and the respective sizes is queried
> just at the start of
>     GhostScript.
> 
> I think the solution for this is to make a new
> interface
> to allow Emacs to specify the pixmap to an existing
> GhostScript
> process when reusing it for another image.
> 
> Andy, can you implement such an interface for Emacs
> to use?
> 
>     >       In contrast, preview-latex first deals
> with on-screen images.
>     >     Once they are dealt with, it reverts to
> rendering the rest
>     >     off-screen.
>     > 
>     > That would be a good optimization to add.
> 
>     Rendering off-screen material is actually not as
> much an optimization,
>     but an interactivity feature.  It means that
> once GhostScript is
>     through, scrolling through the file is not
> computationally expensive.
> 
>     However, if some document has thousands of
> images, it would be saner
>     to render them just to disk in case you'll need
> them, but not burden
>     Emacs' memory with them unless one actually
> moves there.
> 
> That makes sense.  Can that be done easily with
> reuse of a
> single GhostScript process, with the existing
> GhostScript features?
> If not, what new feature do we need?


=====
Andy Tai, address@hidden
Free Software: the software by the people, of the people and for the people! 
Develop! Share! Enhance! Enjoy!