Subject: Re: RemapGlyph()
From: Martin Sevior (msevior@mccubbin.ph.unimelb.edu.au)
Date: Thu Jun 21 2001 - 17:54:00 CDT
On Thu, 21 Jun 2001, WJCarpenter wrote:
> As Andrew Dunbar points out, it is wrong to treat "missing glyphs" and
> "zero-width glyphs" as the same thing. The trouble is, I don't think
> you can tell the difference in any reliable way on some of the
> platforms (maybe I'm wrong about that, though). We have so many
> different font things going on, so much swearing about fonts, etc,
> that I suggest the best course is to have a new method with a catchy
> name like "glyphExistsForCodepoint(...)" and have remapGlpyhs depend
> on that instead of depending on the font metrics directly. For places
> where we can't do better then guessing from the metrics, those places
> will continue to be lame while the other places can correctly answer
> the question.
>
Ok, having spent a little longer in the mess that is Fonts on Unix, I can
say that "glyphExistsForCodepoint" is both a good idea and implementable
on Unix. The printing bug I just fixed would have much easier to track
down if this logic had existed last week.
Cheers
Martin
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b25 : Thu Jun 21 2001 - 17:54:29 CDT