Re: [bug-enscript] Question on "-2" column fill behaviour..

[uhmgawa]

On 09/19/2012 05:57 PM, Tim Retout wrote:

> However, GNU source-highlight is a strong competitor on all these points.

Personally I'm happy with source-highlight.  It is quite versatile and 
standardizing
on one parse tool vs. N is far more sane.  Having consistency between "less" 
(with
source-highlight) and hardcopy would be great.  If vim used the same library my
workflow would be complete w/r/t tool format consistency.

source-highlight brings in the ability to add a ctags-leveraged cross reference 
to
its output which AFAICT is a missing feature for all of the postscript tools.

> ..Then figure out how to plumb it into a2ps, and you've combined the more 
> flexible PostScript generation with better highlighting.

So your preference would be to abandon enscript in favor of a a2ps + 
source-highlight
approach?  Actually my personal observations were similar, namely that a2ps does
a better job of rendering postscript and enscript does a better job of parsing
input content.  I only rattled down this path wanting to squeeze the long column
portrait format out of enscript.