Re: Printing from WindowXP version of emacs

[Eli Zaretskii <eliz@gnu.org>]

> From: Ilya Zakharevich <nospam-abuse@ilyaz.org>
> Date: Mon, 19 Dec 2005 17:53:10 +0000 (UTC)
> Bcc: ilya@gnu.org
> Originator: ilya@powdermilk.math.berkeley.edu
> 
> > > Please explain how you can print this buffer if all you know about the
> > > printer is that it accessible through the named pipe "/pipe/printer-input".
> > 
> > Set printer-name to "/pipe/printer-input" and invoke lpr-buffer.
> 
> Will not do anything.  This pipe does not accept arbitrary-ASCII input.

Are we talking about a pipe that you invented or about a pipe that
represents the MS-Windows way of talking to a remote printer?  If it's
a pipe that you invented, then of course you are free to define
whatever behavior for it that suits your current pleasure in this
argument.  But if it's a Windows-style so called ``printer share
name'', then writing `a' to it _will_ print `a' (give or take some
command to force the printer to eject the page after printing a single
character).

> > > Now repeat this assuming that the only character in buffer is U+0292.
> 
> > This doesn't have anything to do with the issue at hand, but the
> > answer is the same, assuming you have your encoding stuff set up
> > correctly wrt the encoding supported by the printer.
> 
> There is no "encoding supported by the printer".  You may assume that
> the printer supports only its only "command set".

I will assume what happens in reality, not some silly rules of game
that you just invented.  In reality, the printer expects the text sent
to it to come in some encoding.

> > > Are you assuming that sending character "a" to the printer pipe will
> > > print "a" on paper?
> 
> > On MS-Windows, it does.
> 
> I know very little about Win*, but AFAICS, this thread is about the
> fact that it does not.

I think you didn't understand at all what we were talking about.  If
you know how to send text from an Emacs buffer to a printer at all,
then sending `a' _will_ print `a'.

> > > I'm not even sure that typical printers-of-today can work with
> > > one-sided-connection at all...
> 
> > Sorry, I don't understand what you mean by one-sided-connection, and
> > neither what that has to do with this thread.
> 
> My understanding is that you indeed understand very little about what
> this thread is about.

My understanding is that you are bored and decided to have some fun by
talking nonsense about issues you ``know very little about''.

> BTW, "connection" is the communication channel between the printer and
> the computer.  There is no reason to assume that one can print using
> one-sided communication (computer --> printer) only; at some moment
> the printer may send some information back to computer, and expect it
> perform some action.

We are not talking at this level, since normal applications never
communicate to printers directly, but through some device driver or
some other piece of software.  That funny pipe you invented is
normally a symbolic name whose I/O is intercepted by such an interface
software and converted into signals that run on the wire; then the
issue of uni- vs bi-directional communications is relevant.

I'm sure you know all this all too well.

> Hope this helps,

As usual, it didn't.