> > No -- the RE macro in groff is Clark's original code. Until now there
> > were never any complaints, but it is probably an enhancement to use
> > the code from dvips. Opinions?
>
> There could not be any complaints since any font was reencoded only
> once, thus there were no two fonts with the same UniqueID in PS
> output. But as we are going Unicode there may be several
> reencodings of the same font used in grops output.
Multiple reeencodings happen all the time in LaTeX. If this dvips
snippet works fine, I think we can take it too... Just tell me
whether I shall use it :-)
> And all reencodings get the same UniqueID. It seems UniqueID has
> something to do with caching. If there is no UniqueID no caching is
> done. Since performance is not a high priority and the effect of
> UniqueID is questionnable it may be simply omitted from PS fonts we
> obtain by reencoding.
Hmm, how shall we handle this? grops doesn't handle UniqueID
specially.
> See the first result of the following search for insight [...]
Thanks. I still don't know enough about this topic (and admittedly,
I'n not very interested in further investigation) to decide about the
`right' way.
Werner
_______________________________________________
Groff mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/groff
