> > > If we can't change the existing function then I agree that a new > > > one is a good idea, but I would prefer > > > FT_GlyphSlot_Embolden_By_Weight or something like that to give > > > an idea of the meaning of the new parameter. > > FT_GlyphSlot_Embolden exists only for historial reasons, and is a > wrapper to FT_Bitmap_Embolen and FT_Outline_Embolden. One can copy the > code and modify it to suit his/her need. > > If new APIs are to be added, I would prefer to have > FT_Glyph_Embolden and FT_Glyph_Oblique. Glyph transformations > should be done to FT_Glyph, not to FT_GlyphSlot.
Chia-I, can you work on that? Werner _______________________________________________ Freetype-devel mailing list Freetype-devel@nongnu.org http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/freetype-devel