bug#1524: 23.0.60; gs.el - This code is experimental. Don't use it.

bug#1524: 23.0.60; gs.el - This code is experimental. Don't use it.

[Leo]

Hi there,

I really have no idea what gs.el does. The code looks sketchy leading me
to believe the comment in its header actually is true.

  This code is experimental.  Don't use it.

Bye,
-- 
.:  Leo  :.  [ sdl.web AT gmail.com ]  .: I use Emacs :.

bug#1524: 23.0.60; gs.el - This code is experimental. Don't use it.

[Chong Yidong]

> I really have no idea what gs.el does. The code looks sketchy leading me
> to believe the comment in its header actually is true.
>
>   This code is experimental.  Don't use it.

Looks like cruft to me too.

Does anyone object to removing this file?

bug#1524: 23.0.60; gs.el - This code is experimental. Don't use it.

[Johan =?UTF-8?Q?Bockg=C3=A5rd]

Chong Yidong <cyd@stupidchicken.com> writes:

>> I really have no idea what gs.el does. The code looks sketchy leading me
>> to believe the comment in its header actually is true.
>>
>>   This code is experimental.  Don't use it.
>
> Looks like cruft to me too.

It is the implementation of this feature:

  (info "(elisp) PostScript Images")

bug#1524: 23.0.60; gs.el - This code is experimental. Don't use it.

[Leo]

On 2008-12-09 23:51 +0000, Chong Yidong wrote:
>> I really have no idea what gs.el does. The code looks sketchy leading me
>> to believe the comment in its header actually is true.
>>
>>   This code is experimental.  Don't use it.
>
> Looks like cruft to me too.
>
> Does anyone object to removing this file?

I think it is safe to remove (info "(elisp)PostScript Images") and gs.el
now that over a month has passed.

Best,

Leo

bug#1524: 23.0.60; gs.el - This code is experimental. Don't use it.

[Chong Yidong]

Leo <sdl.web@gmail.com> writes:

> I think it is safe to remove (info "(elisp)PostScript Images") and
> gs.el now that over a month has passed.

It's used in image.c.  We should probably try to fix it if it doesn't
work properly.

bug#1524: 23.0.60; gs.el - This code is experimental. Don't use it.

[Leo]

On 2009-01-10 13:22 +0000, Chong Yidong wrote:
> Leo <sdl.web@gmail.com> writes:
>
>> I think it is safe to remove (info "(elisp)PostScript Images") and
>> gs.el now that over a month has passed.
>
> It's used in image.c.  We should probably try to fix it if it doesn't
> work properly.

I don't use it so I don't know whether it has bugs. I suspect it
has. But I'm mostly concerned by the comment in the source which advise
users not to use it.

Best,

Leo

bug#1524: 23.0.60; gs.el - This code is experimental. Don't use it.

[Stefan Monnier]

>>> I think it is safe to remove (info "(elisp)PostScript Images") and
>>> gs.el now that over a month has passed.
>> It's used in image.c.  We should probably try to fix it if it doesn't
>> work properly.
> I don't use it so I don't know whether it has bugs. I suspect it
> has. But I'm mostly concerned by the comment in the source which advise
> users not to use it.

IIRC David Kastrup would know how broken it is.


        Stefan

bug#1524: 23.0.60; gs.el - This code is experimental. Don't use it.

[Leo]

2009/1/11 Stefan Monnier <monnier@iro.umontreal.ca>:
>>>> I think it is safe to remove (info "(elisp)PostScript Images") and
>>>> gs.el now that over a month has passed.
>>> It's used in image.c.  We should probably try to fix it if it doesn't
>>> work properly.
>> I don't use it so I don't know whether it has bugs. I suspect it
>> has. But I'm mostly concerned by the comment in the source which advise
>> users not to use it.
>
> IIRC David Kastrup would know how broken it is.

Ping?

>        Stefan
>

bug#1524: 23.0.60; gs.el - This code is experimental. Don't use it.

[Leo]

On 2009-01-11 14:57 +0000, Stefan Monnier wrote:
[...]
> IIRC David Kastrup would know how broken it is.

Here is David's response.

------------------------------------------------
Leo <sdl.web@googlemail.com> writes:

> 2009/1/11 Stefan Monnier <monnier@iro.umontreal.ca>:
>>>>> I think it is safe to remove (info "(elisp)PostScript Images") and
>>>>> gs.el now that over a month has passed.
>>>> It's used in image.c.  We should probably try to fix it if it
>doesn't
>>>> work properly.
>>> I don't use it so I don't know whether it has bugs. I suspect it
>>> has. But I'm mostly concerned by the comment in the source which
>advise
>>> users not to use it.
>>
>> IIRC David Kastrup would know how broken it is.
>
> Stefan's email sent an email address of yours which is no longer in
> use. Could you comment this in emacs-devel mailing list?

Pass it on if you want to.  There are a lot of problems due to
Ghostscript rendering directly to Pixmaps.  Every image is rendered with
its own Ghostscript process, but the parameter passing requires X
properties as a global resource.  This is done once per Ghostscript
session and includes the display dimensions, so it can't really be
extended to multiple image rendering without further Ghostscript API
changes.

The display code triggering the display is rather asynchronous: I've not
been able figuring out how it is rooted in the bowels of the display
engine.

In practice, it worked more or less for a single image rendering per
Emacs session.  It doesn't scale at all.  Serious work both in
Ghostscript as well as in Emacs would be required to make this a smooth
working feature, and I see no candidate for either.
------------------------------------------------

bug#1524: 23.0.60; gs.el - This code is experimental. Don't use it.

[Glenn Morris]

Version: 26.1

In 3c65523 I obsoleted it (which breaks it, since obsolete files aren't
scanned for autoloads. I've never seen it used.) I think ImageMagick
images can do whatever this did, better.