On Wed, Apr 11, 2007 at 09:00:49PM +0200, Jan Engelhardt wrote:
> >+struct interval {
> >+ int first;
> >+ int last;
> >+};
>
> CodingStyle? uint16_t instead of int?
> >+ { 0x1D173, 0x1D182 }, { 0x1D185, 0x1D18B }, { 0x1D1AA, 0x1D1AD },
> >+ { 0xE0001, 0xE0001 }, { 0xE0020, 0xE007F }, { 0xE0100, 0xE01EF }
> >+ };
>
> Since Unicode above 0xFFFF is unsupported, could not these entries be killed?
The UTF-8 decoder part already supports full 31-bit Unicode (including 5 and
6 byte long UTF-8 sequences). It's only the font handling part that doesn't
support Unicode beyond BMP. If an application prints a non-BMP character
that is double-wide, or is a zero-width space, the expected behavior is to
move the cursor by two or zero positions. In order to do this, width
information is needed even beyond BMP. It's a completely different story
that there would be no real glyph displayed, just e.g. a replacement symbol
followed by a space to pretend a real double-width character was printed.
> unsigned int rescan:1;
> unsigned int inverse:1;
> unsigned int width; or even uint8_t.
> I would not mind unsigned.
Okay.
--
Egmont
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
