Re: [ft] question on FT number formats

[Johannes Walther]

David Turner <address@hidden> wrote:

> Hi Johannes,
> > For Type1 with pfm I get absolutely strange
> values.
> > For a URW Gothic L Book with pfm and
> > FT_KERNING_UNSCALED I get 65464 instead of -72 or
> > 65488 instead of -48 but the positive values are
> ok.
> > With FT_KERNING_DEFAULT I get 372416 instead of
> -384.
> 
> It'a silly typo in the PFM parsing code, kerning
> values were
> read as 16-bit *unsigned* values, intead of signed
> ones.
> 
> I've just commited a fix, please test

Wow, that's great. Just tested it and it fixes that.
Thanks.

Just out of curiosity, are pfm or kerning at all so
rarely used? According to the CVS, the bug must have
been in for at least one year.
I mean not that the kerning was just a little wrong
but it produced huge gaps between characters, so I
wonder why noone seems to have noticed that.

Bye,
  Johannes




        
                
___________________________________________________________ 
Der frühe Vogel fängt den Wurm. Hier gelangen Sie zum neuen Yahoo! Mail: 
http://mail.yahoo.de