From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
To: 9fans@cse.psu.edu
Subject: Re: [9fans] psutils et al
From: rog@vitanuova.com
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Message-Id: <20010215142606.4C388199E3@mail.cse.psu.edu>
Date: Thu, 15 Feb 2001 15:31:00 +0000
Topicbox-Message-UUID: 662955bc-eac9-11e9-9e20-41e7f4b1d025

> As long as the driver used by
> page produces images rather than drawing directly in a window, the
> question of whether it's page or the driver that does the bit
> manipulation is moot.  (And, if we agree that page should provide the
> facility of rotating any displayed image, then page might as well do
> it.)

i think the point is that ghostscript already applies an arbitrary
transformation matrix when rendering down to the final image that will
be passed to page so, in this case anyway, it would be vastly more
efficient to tell ghostscript to render rotated, rather than to rotate
the resulting image.

as page has a fairly close association with ghostscript anyway, this
shouldn't be too difficult.

i guess if you want to view a gif/jpeg rotated, one can rotate it
first.  pity fb/* has gone.

  cheers,
    rog.