freetype-devel
[Top][All Lists]
Advanced

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [Devel] FreeType documentation comments


From: Werner LEMBERG
Subject: Re: [Devel] FreeType documentation comments
Date: Sat, 25 May 2002 14:38:26 +0200 (CEST)

> I like using the editor built into the Microsoft Visual C++ IDE. I
> stopped using EMACS in about 1982, when I finished working with
> Multics, and I haven't missed it one bit. But seriously, a style
> convention should be easy to use with any editor, and not require a
> particular one.

For writing code, I don't use Emacs either.

> > Just do it.  I'll take care of formatting (this is my way of
> > reading code).
> 
> This is what I expected.

:-)

> Naturally I am not arrogant enough to expect to be able to force my
> way on you, the owners of FreeType, but I think, perhaps in vain,
> that if I try to argue the case long enough for a different way of
> doing things I might be successful.

We listen to you!  But until now I'm not convinced.

> And the major design problems in FreeType, which I have argued about
> elsewhere, are the exceptionally wide interfaces to functions
> (almost everything can be reached via pointer chains from evry
> function, and almost nothing is const), awkward conventions
> involving the ownership of objects like faces and glyphs, and the
> difficulty in creating black-box objects.  These structural problems
> are more important than any matters of notation.

I fully agree.  BTW, this is something for David; since he will soon
start a new round of coding, there's a high chance that he implements
(some of) your suggestions.

> I shouldn't really have said that, because the English is so good,
> in fact better than the English of most British and American
> programmers, that it's not worth bothering about. The only things I
> can remember off-hand are the use of 'x resp. y' for 'x or y
> respectively', and the use of 'forge' for 'make' or 'create'. But
> there is nothing that changed the meaning or caused difficulties in
> understanding.

I'm really missing an English word for `beziehungsweise' (shortened in
German to `bzw.'); `respectively' isn't a good replacement for that...

In case you find bad English, please send patches.


    Werner



reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]