# Words of more than 32765 characters

When I compile the following document:

\documentclass[10pt, oneside, a4paper]{report}
\begin{document}
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
\end{document}


where the number of x's is greater than 32765, Adobe Reader is not able to read the document anymore, and just produces a blank page. Has anybody come across this before?

-
The actual limit seems to be 32767 = 2^{15}-1; other PDF viewers don't choke even with 1073741 characters (Skim on Mac OS X). –  egreg Sep 29 '11 at 13:07
Have you tried different versions of Adobe Reader/Acrobat? –  einpoklum Sep 29 '11 at 14:50
How the heck did you come across this behavior? –  doncherry Sep 29 '11 at 15:04
In the anglophone world, it is standard that the . in 32.765 would be interpreted as a decimal point. That is, 32.765 is less than 33. The typical thousands separator is the comma ,. The numbers here are not so big, so I edited the post to just remove the separator. I believe this is the least ambiguous approach. –  Seamus Sep 29 '11 at 15:12
@doncherry Where I work, we use LaTeX for document generation. One of the unit tests produce a very funky report, including such a string. The reason for the string, is actually to test what happens when generating an excel-sheet, where the maximum number of characters in a cell is larger than 32.767. –  utdiscant Sep 30 '11 at 17:49

The implementation limit for the length of strings in content streams for readers on 32-bit architectures is 32767 according to ISO 32000-2008, Table C.1, so 32766 and 32767 should probably also work.

-
I tried indeed with \romannumeral 32767000 to print a string consisting of 32677 m's and Reader opened it; with 32768 it didn't. Probably Reader is enforcing the limit, while other programs don't (see my comment above). –  egreg Sep 29 '11 at 17:45
@egreg: It doesn't have to enforce it: the limit is simply the length that any reader has to support - it's free to support longer strings, but producers are warned against creating them. –  Martin Schröder Sep 29 '11 at 20:02
Said in other words: Adobe people decided to not support longer strings and they have very good reasons. –  egreg Sep 29 '11 at 20:29
@egreg: Well, the implementation limits of 32 bit Adobe software are simply quite old; e.g. floats are limited to singe precision. –  Martin Schröder Sep 29 '11 at 20:37
@egreg: Why would Adobe people enforce such limits? What good reasons do you have in mind? –  Count Zero Sep 30 '11 at 12:05

I tried Adobe Reader X, it is OK. I think you may need to update your software.

-
I used Adobe Reader X myself, and I get the problem. –  utdiscant Sep 30 '11 at 17:45
Seeing the problem with Acrobat X on Win XP –  einpoklum Oct 2 '11 at 16:57