MacArthur, Ian (SELEX GALILEO, UK) wrote:
> How do people feel about my "fl_text_extents" patch (STR #2076)?
Offhand I'm not familiar with the difference between a
"typographical bounding box" and a "minimal bounding box".
It's probably obvious, and I haven't had my coffee yet.
I'm guessing it's something like the vertical difference
between the strings "Lj" and "--", where I suppose
fl_measure() is returning the same 'height' for both, and
fl_text_extents() probably returns '1' as the height of "--"..?
eg:
fl_measure:
................ .................
: ___ : : :
: | o : : :
: | -- : : ---- ---- :
: _|___| | : : :
: \_| : : :
:..............: :...............:
fl_text_extents:
...............
: ___ :
: | o : ..............
: | -- : : ---- ---- :
: _|___| | : :............:
: \_| :
:.............:
Is that right?
(I hope newsreaders aren't going to mangle my ascii-art underbars
into underlined underbars..! Maybe hit 'View Source' if it does..)
> Is the proposed API acceptable? Does it suitably follow the fltk-style?
Seems perfectly fine to me, and what I'd expect.
_______________________________________________
fltk-dev mailing list
fltk-dev@easysw.com
http://lists.easysw.com/mailman/listinfo/fltk-dev
