Hello !
>> 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? > > Yes - that's exactly it. (Nice graphic BTW.) > > In practice, the "extents" box is very tightly fitted around the "inked" > area of the glyphs, much more tightly than the "measure" box would be. > > >> > Is the proposed API acceptable? Does it suitably follow the >> fltk-style? >> >> Seems perfectly fine to me, and what I'd expect. > > Thanks, I appreciate the feedback. I would like to have something like this but one that accepts a String and gives back the minimum width and - height. CU _______________________________________________ fltk-dev mailing list [email protected] http://lists.easysw.com/mailman/listinfo/fltk-dev
