Hi,
Arranging a set of patches where each of them is a meaningful unit of changes
takes a lot of work.
I'll do that again, but I hope that's the last time I have to do that.
Regarding ftimage.h and ftrender.h,
These macros that declared there might be necessary if a user needs to
instantiate an FT_Outline_Funcs or FT_Raster_Funcs or FT_Glyph_Class struct in
his code and needs the code to be compatible with PIC.
Regarding the rest of the changes in ftmodapi.h and ftrender,
I don’t know if a user is expected to implement a renderer or a module
externally (on his own), but if he does then he might need these macros too.
If not, then why are FT_Renderer_Class and FT_Module_Class structs exposed to
the user?
Anyway, if you do decide to move these macros to another header, we can do that
after the current set of patches I'm preparing.
Thanks.
Oran.
From: David Turner
Sent: Wednesday, March 25, 2009 4:37 PM
Thank you Oran, this looks better indeed. However, this is a patch against your
previous patch and a patch against the current git sources would be better.
I also tried to apply your previous set of patches to the git repository, and
it failed due to inconsistencies with the ChangeLog file. Can I ask you to
provide a second set of patches from a more recent commit ?
I would also prefer if you do *not* modify public header files (e.g.
ftimage.h), the corresponding declarations you want to add could instead be
placed in internal/ftobjs.h
_______________________________________________
Freetype-devel mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/freetype-devel
