> Otherwise it’s going to be very difficult conducting
> a coherent conversation with you.
What Werner think as the best design could be different from
what the current implementation does. Even if it is not the
best design, the maintainer cannot introduce the change breaking
the backward compatibility, without sufficient rationale and
concrete evaluation of the impact.
On 5/11/2018 7:21 AM, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
On Thu, 10 May 2018 00:55:42 +0200 (CEST), Werner LEMBERG wrote:
On Thu, 10 May 2018 10:29:11 +1200, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
On Wed, 09 May 2018 14:11:19 +0200 (CEST), Werner LEMBERG wrote:
IMHO, `FT_Done_Face' shouldn't return an error code
at all.
Glad you finally agree. So how to fix it?
IMHO, there is nothing to fix.
* For backward compability, it should continue to return
FT_Err_Ok.
It should return what it already returns.
But it returns an error code. But above you said it “shouldn’t return
an error code at all”. So here you saying it *should* return an error
code.
Could you please clarify what you mean? Otherwise it’s going to be very
difficult conducting a coherent conversation with you.
_______________________________________________
Freetype mailing list
Freetype@nongnu.org
https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/freetype
_______________________________________________
Freetype mailing list
Freetype@nongnu.org
https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/freetype
