On 2021/08/14 02:42:24, ababialex9 wrote:
> mailto:alexabab...@gmail.com
https://codereview.appspot.com/566080043/
alexabab...@gmail.com
https://codereview.appspot.com/566080043/
On 2020/05/10 11:12:37, lemzwerg wrote:
> *Much* better to read and understand, thanks! LGTM now.
https://codereview.appspot.com/566080043/
https://codereview.appspot.com/566080043/
https://codereview.appspot.com/566080043/
https://codereview.appspot.com/566080043/
https://codereview.appspot.com/566080043/
https://codereview.appspot.com/566080043/
https://codereview.appspot.com/566080043/
On 2020/05/10 11:12:37, lemzwerg wrote:
> *Much* better to read and understand, thanks! LGTM now.
https://codereview.appspot.com/566080043/
*Much* better to read and understand, thanks! LGTM now.
https://codereview.appspot.com/566080043/
On 2020/05/10 10:03:57, hahnjo wrote:
> > > > yes. I find it easier to reason about and read. It's all inlined
anyway.
> > >
> > > const refs should work the same AFAICS
> >
> > Yes, I know. Do you want me to change this?
>
> Yes, const refs avoid relying on compiler optimizations to remove the
On 2020/05/10 10:00:54, hahnjo wrote:
> On 2020/05/10 09:29:48, hanwenn wrote:
> >
https://codereview.appspot.com/566080043/diff/560020046/lily/freetype.cc
> > File lily/freetype.cc (right):
> >
> >
>
https://codereview.appspot.com/566080043/diff/560020046/lily/freetype.cc#newcode143
> >
On 2020/05/10 10:02:27, hanwenn wrote:
> On 2020/05/10 10:00:54, hahnjo wrote:
> > On 2020/05/10 09:29:48, hanwenn wrote:
>
https://codereview.appspot.com/566080043/diff/560020046/lily/freetype.cc#newcode149
> > > lily/freetype.cc:149: return ((Path_interpreter *) user)->moveto
(*to);
> > > On
On 2020/05/10 10:00:54, hahnjo wrote:
> On 2020/05/10 09:29:48, hanwenn wrote:
> >
https://codereview.appspot.com/566080043/diff/560020046/lily/freetype.cc
> > File lily/freetype.cc (right):
> >
> >
>
https://codereview.appspot.com/566080043/diff/560020046/lily/freetype.cc#newcode143
> >
On 2020/05/10 09:29:48, hanwenn wrote:
>
https://codereview.appspot.com/566080043/diff/560020046/lily/freetype.cc
> File lily/freetype.cc (right):
>
>
https://codereview.appspot.com/566080043/diff/560020046/lily/freetype.cc#newcode143
> lily/freetype.cc:143: };
> On 2020/05/10 09:16:58, hahnjo
https://codereview.appspot.com/566080043/diff/560020046/lily/freetype.cc
File lily/freetype.cc (right):
https://codereview.appspot.com/566080043/diff/560020046/lily/freetype.cc#newcode143
lily/freetype.cc:143: };
On 2020/05/10 09:16:58, hahnjo wrote:
> Not sure if FT developers plan to change
https://codereview.appspot.com/566080043/diff/560020046/lily/freetype.cc
File lily/freetype.cc (right):
https://codereview.appspot.com/566080043/diff/560020046/lily/freetype.cc#newcode143
lily/freetype.cc:143: };
Not sure if FT developers plan to change this interface at some point.
In other
On Sun, May 10, 2020 at 10:38 AM wrote:
>
> On 2020/05/09 20:38:12, hanwenn wrote:
> > it's separate because it causes formatting changes. I like to keep the
> bugfixes
> > and performance fixes separate. (Performance fixes should not cause
> regtest
> > differences)
>
> Sounds fair, but I don't
On 2020/05/09 20:38:12, hanwenn wrote:
> it's separate because it causes formatting changes. I like to keep the
bugfixes
> and performance fixes separate. (Performance fixes should not cause
regtest
> differences)
Sounds fair, but I don't understand the relation of the two changes:
- Both touch
> > I don't fully understand this code.
>
> that is an ominous comment to come from the Freetype
> author. I had assumed you reviewed the existing code
> as well.
I have two difficulties: I'm not good at C++ and Guile stuff, and it's
not completely clear to me what the code wants to achieve.
On 2020/05/09 14:23:04, lemzwerg wrote:
> I don't fully understand this code.
that is an ominous comment to come from the Freetype author. I had
assumed
you reviewed the existing code as well.
> Please add more comments.
>
> A quite well documented routine to walk over a contour is function
>
it's separate because it causes formatting changes. I like to keep the
bugfixes and performance fixes separate. (Performance fixes should not
cause regtest differences)
https://codereview.appspot.com/566080043/
Why is this separate from https://codereview.appspot.com/569700043 ?
https://codereview.appspot.com/566080043/
I don't fully understand this code. Please add more comments.
A quite well documented routine to walk over a contour is function
`FT_Outline_Decompose` in file `src/base/ftoutln.c` of the FreeType
source code.
https://codereview.appspot.com/566080043/diff/560030043/lily/freetype.cc
File
Reviewers: lemzwerg,
Message:
Werner, can you confirm that this looks correct? I'm especially not
certain about the wrapping.
Description:
Clean up and fix glyph contour generation nits.
There are two bugs:
* Glyphs with multiple contours (e.g. "O" or "i") should compute the
contours
26 matches
Mail list logo
