Re: [ft-devel] gxvalid patch for ftvalid.c

2005-08-23 Thread Werner LEMBERG 

 P.S. After moving the FreeType2 cvs repository to
 savannah(subversions?).gnu.org, I may lose my write-access to it.
 I'm happy if you give mpsuzuki instead of me to write-access for
 gxvalid merging tasks.

Toshiya-san, Masatake-san,


thanks a lot for your work!  I've given both of you write access to
the FreeType repository -- please add everything to the CVS; I'll
revise it later on.

Just a minor nit: Wouldn't it be better if you thoroughly use
`TRUETYPE_GX' instead of `TRUETYPEGX'?  Or maybe `GX' is sufficient to
avoid too long tags?


Werner


___
Freetype-devel mailing list
Freetype-devel@nongnu.org
http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/freetype-devel

Re: [ft-devel] gxvalid patch for ftvalid.c

2005-08-23 Thread mpsuzuki 
Dear Mr. Werner LEMBERG,

On Tue, 23 Aug 2005 11:50:35 +0200 (CEST)
Werner LEMBERG [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

 thanks a lot for your work!  I've given both of you write access to
 the FreeType repository -- please add everything to the CVS; I'll
 revise it later on.

Great Thank you for CVS permission!
I will commit gxvalid patch within 48 hours from now.
 
 Just a minor nit: Wouldn't it be better if you thoroughly use
 `TRUETYPE_GX' instead of `TRUETYPEGX'?  Or maybe `GX' is sufficient to
 avoid too long tags?

Thank you for pointing out.

Yes, the keyword TRUETYPEGX is ugly and lengthy for
capitalized keyword. We've chosen it by a process of elimination.

TRUETYPE_GX is more natural analogous of the name TrueType GX.
But there are existing FT_TRUETYPE_XXX macros,
so we've thought TRUETYPEGX is better to avoid namespace confusion,
for the people unfamiliar with font formats.

GX looks enoughly short, in fact, ICU uses such naming rule.
But I'm afraid that GX is a bit too generic keyword,
it can be used in different context, in future.
If GX is expected to be particular keyword in future,
I will rewrite with GX. How do you think about?

Regards,
mpsuzuki


___
Freetype-devel mailing list
Freetype-devel@nongnu.org
http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/freetype-devel

Re: [ft-devel] gxvalid patch for ftvalid.c

2005-08-23 Thread Werner LEMBERG 

 I will rewrite with GX. How do you think about?

This is fine with me.


Werner


___
Freetype-devel mailing list
Freetype-devel@nongnu.org
http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/freetype-devel

Re: [ft-devel] gxvalid patch for ftvalid.c

2005-08-23 Thread mpsuzuki 
On Wed, 24 Aug 2005 00:14:10 +0200 (CEST)
Werner LEMBERG [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
  I will rewrite with GX. How do you think about?
 
 This is fine with me.

After replacing _TRUETYPEGX_ macros to _GX_,
I've just committed whole of gxvalid patch to CVS.

Yamato-san, please commit ft2demos patch, after replacing
the line in ftvalid.c

#include FT_TRUETYPEGX_VALIDATE_H

to

#include FT_GX_VALIDATE_H

Regards,
mpsuzuki


___
Freetype-devel mailing list
Freetype-devel@nongnu.org
http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/freetype-devel