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

[mpsuzuki]

Dear Mr. Werner LEMBERG,

On Tue, 23 Aug 2005 11:50:35 +0200 (CEST)
Werner LEMBERG <address@hidden> 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