Re: possible issue with ps2pdf (9.25) and transparency

Hello Ken,

On Sep 17 12:06 Ken Sharp wrote (excerpt):

> At 12:56 17/09/2018 +0200, Johannes Meixner wrote:
>> On Sep 17 10:26 Ken Sharp wrote (excerpt):
>>> At 10:55 17/09/2018 +0200, Johannes Meixner wrote:
>>>> I assume currently this is not possible but I would appreciate it
>>>> when in a future Ghostscript version any non-standard PostScript
>>>> extension would only be supported when a special command line
>>>> option was explicitly specified that enables the extension.
>>> 
>>> I'm afraid that such a setup would break many existing
>>> applications which use Ghostscript.
>> 
>> I don't think so because my crucial point is that the intended
>> behaviour can be specified by an appropriate Ghostscript option.
>> 
>> What the default behaviour is is of secondary importance.
>> 
>> E.g. assume there is a Ghostscript command line option
>> '-dNOEXTENSIONS' then the current default behaviour
>> would not change so that no existing application would
>> need to be changed.
>
> Umm, but that's the opposite of what you said above.
> Or so it seems to me.

Sorry, I was not clear enough.

Yes, '-dNOEXTENSIONS' is opposite boolean logic of what I
had initially said.

I inverted the boolean logic as response to what you wrote
to keep things backward compatible and tried to explain
what my actually crucial point is: that the behaviour
can be specified - regardless what the default is.


Kind Regards
Johannes Meixner
-- 
SUSE LINUX GmbH - GF: Felix Imendoerffer, Jane Smithard,
Graham Norton - HRB 21284 (AG Nuernberg)