Re: metapost terminal

[Hans-Bernhard B. <br...@ph...>]

On Wed, 9 Jun 2004, Andrzej [utf-8] W=C4=85sowski wrote:

> Hans-Bernhard Broeker <broeker <at> physik.rwth-aachen.de> writes:
> =20
> > Not necessarily.  The general method for platforms that don't sup=
port
> > patterns in some native way is to draw them as lots of individual=
 lines.
> > That's possible because we do pattern-filling only for boxes.
>=20
> Do you mean that there is some software level option that can be se=
t in
> the terminal driver to make the calling code use primitive line dra=
wing
> commands of the terminal to draw the patterns?

No --- although arguably there should be.  What I was getting at is t=
hat
each terminal driver is on its own how to do it, but those that aren'=
t as
sophisticated as to allow masking a large pattern to the inside of a =
given
curve,  usually achieve pattern filling by just drawing the hatch lin=
es
directly.  Check out how existing drivers do it, and you'll see.

> The main issue for me now is to know what are the patterns to be dr=
awn.

Your choice.  You may want to imitate some existing driver's behaviou=
r
for consistency, but you don't have to.

> > Not necessary.  As long as the grid line style is noticably light=
er than
> > the borders, you're OK.  Some terminals dot it, some draw it in g=
ray, some
> > others combine those two.
>=20
> The distinction between grid line style and other lines is fairly g=
ood
> with on screen postscript previewers, but it is much less clear on =
the
> printout IMHO.=20

That'll depend heavily on the kind of printer you use, I guess.  'set=
 term
postscript colour solid' output will print badly on a b/w laser anywa=
y,
regardless of what you do with the grid lines.  On a colour printer, =
the
current method should work very nicely.


--=20
Hans-Bernhard Broeker (br...@ph...)
Even if all the snow were burnt, ashes would remain.