On 10/17/2011 12:11 PM, Petr Kobalíček wrote: > Hello list, > > I'd like to ask what is real purpose/advantage to have hb_unicode_funcs_t?
More flexible builds! > I know that this is a wrapper to the real implementation, but is there > another use-case to switch unicode functions on the fly and per > hb_buffer? There are many reasons: - This lets you compile HarfBuzz with no default implementation and hook yours at runtime. - Even if there is an internal implementation already, you may want to hook yours. For example, a Python user may want to hookup Python's Unicode Character Database instead. Same for Perl, etc. - It's also useful for developing new scripts for Unicode. This is a small audience, but since I regularly work with these people, I wanted to accommodate their needs. - Having it per-buffer enables comparison against different implementations. - Having it per-buffer instead of global is simply an artifact of HarfBuzz being a shared library. Ie. no global settable state. The buffer simply was the best place to put this. What's your concern, if any? behdad > Thanks! > Petr Kobalicek _______________________________________________ HarfBuzz mailing list [email protected] http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/harfbuzz
