RE: [ft-devel] we don't need both FT_CONFIG_OPTION_POSTSCRIPT_NAMES andFT_CONFIG_OPTION_NO_POSTSCRIPT_NAMES

[Graham Asher]

PS: I have just noticed that there is another reference to
FT_CONFIG_OPTION_NO_POSTSCRIPT_NAMES, and a mention in a comment, in
psmodule.c; these too should be changed in the obvious way.

Graham

-----Original Message-----
From: address@hidden
[mailto:address@hidden On
Behalf Of Graham Asher
Sent: 01 August 2007 16:31
To: address@hidden
Subject: [ft-devel] we don't need both FT_CONFIG_OPTION_POSTSCRIPT_NAMES
andFT_CONFIG_OPTION_NO_POSTSCRIPT_NAMES

Dear FreeTypers,

here's an inconsistency we should get rid of.

ftoption.h documents and defines FT_CONFIG_OPTION_POSTSCRIPT_NAMES, but the
compilation of psmodule.c is controlled by
FT_CONFIG_OPTION_NO_POSTSCRIPT_NAMES.

I suggest changing line 30 of psmodule.c from

#ifndef FT_CONFIG_OPTION_NO_POSTSCRIPT_NAMES

to

#ifdef FT_CONFIG_OPTION_POSTSCRIPT_NAMES

which will allow the more easily understandable positive option from
ftoption.h to have an effect.

Best wishes,

Graham Asher




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