[+harfbuzz list, Kenichi Handa]
On 11/06/10 05:22, mpsuz...@hiroshima-u.ac.jp wrote:
> Hi,
>
> To parse OpenType tables at low level and
> obtain the substituted glyph index, libotf
> might be useful.
>
> http://www.m17n.org/libotf/
Interesting. I had totally forgotten about libotf. I h
On 11/12/10 07:56, Алексей Подтележников wrote:
> Let's face it. It's only you and me who understand these conditions.
Not really. The rest of us just don't care. Because it's just a Bezier
flattener after all...
No personal attacks on this list. We're grown ups.
behdad
_
All,
If you at least admitted that my patch would produce a better code...
If you at least admitted that my patch is interesting...
I would gladly provide more explanation.
Instead, I hear "should not be applied" for some bogus reasons,
actually just one reason "I do not understand it".
Now you a
Aleksei,
you really shouldn't be annoyed. My earlier patch was shown to be inferior to
David Bevan's, and I was obliged to accept the fact. The only possible criteria
are objective ones: does it work? is it faster? is it simpler? I believe David
has shown using objective arguments that the patc
I think I can get though to this guy...
2010/11/12 David Bevan :
> I've just had a brief chance to look at your proposal, and I now understand
> why it makes no difference to the output. The chances of your relaxed
> condition causing a split when the current (theoretically correct) condition
Aleksei,
If it was indisputably a minor benign improvement, then you'd have reason to be
annoyed. I gave technical reasons why I believe it is not an improvement
(though it is both minor and almost benign). Others are quite free to disagree
on technical grounds.
David %^>
-Original Mess
I am really annoyed by run-arounds and overzealous protection of code
by authors.
I was proposing a minor benign improvement. I am touching the water so to
speak. What's the big deal? Way to attract developers, freetypers! You go!
___
Freetype-devel mai
Aleksei,
If you relax the condition, you increase the number of splits. Normally, making
such a change is a mistake because the benefit of simplifying the condition is
easily outweighed by the greater cost of increasing the recursive depth. This
is the very reason why we ended up with a much m
> Shaded areas "Before" and "After" in the attached figures show where
> control points have should be to permit flattening. Is this a risky
> change? If anything, it is slightly more conservative, yet the
> conditional is quite a bit simpler.
Uh, oh, I have no idea what you are talking about.