Re: Arrow head filling patch, and "port.trm"

[<br...@ph...>]

Chris K wrote:
> Hans-Bernhard Bröker wrote:

>> Looks like you're re-inventing the 'xlib' terminal.  And/or tkcanvas.

> I mildly disagree.  I re-invented debug.trm.

No.  You may have started out from debug.trm, by you ended up with 
something that's really a good deal closer to xlib.trm than to 
debug.trm, in functionality.  Debug.trm is for humans, not machines, to 
read.  Xlib.trm is basically not more than a stream serialization of the 
gnuplot terminal API, to be read by a program like gnuplot_x11.

> I still have not read through each and every terminal driver.  I do see that x11
> is among the largest drivers, and is interactive.  The xlib driver merely
> redirects the x11 commands to a file, which is a slightly different layer than
> port.trm which just sends the original commands.  

The x11 commands *are*, for almost all intents and purposes, the 
original commands.  PM.trm and WIN.trm are very similar to this, in 
approach, although their implementation is somewhat different.

 > This is highly specialized to x11.

Not really.  All the X11-specific code is outside x11.trm.  Up until 
about version 3.7 or so, this even extended to the point that the main 
gnuplot programs wasn't even linked to the X11 libraries.

> In the end, gnuplot gains to ability to drive a rendering program via the output
> file, which I will redirect to a pipe (/dev/fd/5).  

It already has that ability, in the shape of xlib.trm.  Only the syntax 
is different from your work, but not the semantics.