On 13-10-30 03:02 PM, Jonathan Kew wrote: > On 30/10/13 14:42, Behdad Esfahbod wrote: >> In the mean time, I think we should switch hb-shape / hb-view to cache >> their own plan. > > I considered doing that, but adding it to the engine itself seemed more > generally useful - it's likely to benefit many HB clients. (And then doing it > in the test tools would be redundant.)
Humm. Fair enough I guess! That kinda makes shape_plan a bit redundant. Should we simplify the shape_plan API a bit perhaps? For example, have a version that only takes global feature settings, and remembers those, such that executing the plan wouldn't need passing in the features again? Alternatively we can leave it as is. I'm leaning towards this option. -- behdad http://behdad.org/ _______________________________________________ HarfBuzz mailing list [email protected] http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/harfbuzz
