Re: Why can't use a2ps to replace apsfilter outright?

["Dr. Christian Seberino" <seberino@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Thanks for the input.  I thought
a2ps converted *anything* (for the most part)
to postscript.  I thought it detected the
file type automatically.  If all this is
true then it would seem you would NOT need
to have two logical types for your printer
for postscript and ascii since you could just
filter everything thru a2ps no matter what.

Chris

On Mon, May 28, 2001 at 10:02:06PM -0400, John Culleton wrote:
> There are no dumb questions. Sometimes
> there are dumb answers.
> 
> If you have a Postscript printer (as I do)
> then perhaps apsfilter can be replaced
> by your own lashup using just printcap.
> I have done this. I don't need a2ps because
> my Ricoh printer can distinguish between ASCII
> and PS files. I just have a little perl
> thingie which prevents the infamous
> stairstep effect.
> 
> But there are still advantages to apsfilter,
> such as automatically detecting filetype etc.
> I must use two different logical printers ---
> one for PS and one for ASCII.
> 
> If apsfilter were adapted to my situation
> I would be glad to go back to it.
> 
> John Culleton
> 
> Dr. Christian Seberino wrote:
> 
> > This may be a dumb question but 
> > why can't we filter all files to be printed
> > with a2ps and avoid apsfilter?  Wouldn't
> > this negate the need for apsfilter for the
> > most part?  I cannot get a2ps to work so
> > I can't try it out.
> > 
> > Sincerely,
> > 
> > Chris

-- 
===========================================================================
Dr. Christian Seberino  ||
SPAWARSYSCEN D73C       ||
53560 HULL ST           || (619) 553-2564
SAN DIEGO CA 92152-5001 || seberino@spawar.navy.mil
===========================================================================