On 15/11/13 10:26, Behdad Esfahbod wrote: > On 13-11-15 01:15 PM, Dejan Kovacevic wrote: >> > Any reason you've made so much whitespace and cosmetic changes? Makes >>> reviewing your work much harder than it has to be. >> Heh, I though the same before I started reviewing the original code... :) > I'm not talking about style here. It just pollutes the diff output.
Doesn't really matter as far as ICU goes - I don't think it would ever be diffed against ICU's code itself, so it's better as Behdad said to keep it closer to the HB code. >> Anyway, I made these formatting changes to be more consistent with ICU >> Layout Engine's code. Once I realized that the wrapper code is really just >> the LayoutEngine.cpp, my idea was that this wrapper should perhaps be a part >> of ICU LE. > Not really. It replaces ICU LayoutEngine, so doesn't make sense to be part of > it. Though, now I'm going to propose that the wrapper be imported into ICU > itself as a compile-time option. So being a separate library, it doesn't really need to be part of 'ICU itself'. ICU would be happy to host this though if it makes things better. ( Legal side: there's a copyright assignment process, but I'm glad to walk you through it. I'll write you off-list for follow up, but the process is at http://userguide.icu-project.org/dev/contributions and you might be interested in an 'ongoing form' if you want to contribute to the old LE side as well. I'll reply to our old thread about it. ) back to the technical side -- does it matter that HB sometimes depends on ICU? That seems to be the only obstacle I see to having a "--use-harfbuzz" type switch on the ICU LE. Let me know what you think. -s _______________________________________________ HarfBuzz mailing list [email protected] http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/harfbuzz
