Although the original code only has one checker (IS_WHITESPACE), it serves a dual purpose: it is used to determine if we can wrap after—whitespace and tab allow wrapping after; it is also used to determine if we can wrap before—they don’t allow wrapping before (otherwise you see whitespace and tabs on the beginning of the next line).
That is true. I suggested to have a single function so that you could
in that single function perform the same test, just using two
different categories. then you could basically keep the rest of the
logic intact. If that is somehow not possible, can you explain why?
IT_DISPLAYING_WHITESPACE works because it was only check for two types of characters. Now we have four. A Boolean function can’t return more than two possibilities. Two Boolean functions combined can express four possibilities.| Type | wrap_before? | wrap_after? ||-----------+--------------+-------------|| space/tab | no | yes || other | yes | no || Type | wrap_before? | wrap_after? ||-----------+--------------+-------------|| space/tab | no | yes || CJK | yes | yes || other | yes | no || ?? | no | no |
I finally wrapped my head around this, yes I can make it one function which returns a enum. If that’s what you mean. In the meantime I’m still reading the unicode document, the unicode algorithm might require much more machinery. For one, the wrap-ability doesn’t only depend of the immediate characters anymore, e.g., a character before the character before could affect this character’s wrap-ability.
Yuan
|