> > > If we can't change the existing function then I agree that a new
> > > one is a good idea, but I would prefer
> > > FT_GlyphSlot_Embolden_By_Weight or something like that to give
> > > an idea of the meaning of the new parameter.
>
> FT_GlyphSlot_Embolden exists only for historial reasons, and is a
> wrapper to FT_Bitmap_Embolen and FT_Outline_Embolden. One can copy the
> code and modify it to suit his/her need.
>
> If new APIs are to be added, I would prefer to have
> FT_Glyph_Embolden and FT_Glyph_Oblique. Glyph transformations
> should be done to FT_Glyph, not to FT_GlyphSlot.
Chia-I, can you work on that?
Werner
_______________________________________________
Freetype-devel mailing list
Freetype-devel@nongnu.org
http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/freetype-devel
