Re: Musing about the new API

[David Turner]

Hi Just,

Just van Rossum a écrit :
> 
> At 7:21 PM +0100 19-03-2000, Pavel Kankovsky wrote:
> [ ... ]
> All good points...
> 
> >5. Is it necessary to have one implementation of FT_Outline_Decompose() in
> >ftraster.c and another one in ftobjs.c?
> 
> I wouldn't call it neccesary, but I know the reason: David designed
> ftraster.c so that it can also be used as a standalone unit, without
> needing *any* other FT sources. While I appreciate the standalone-ness
> (probably being its only user ;-), I wouldn't mind at all if I had to
> include some additional source files to be able to use it. To have it in
> the rasterizer module seems even sillier in the context of David writing a
> new one every other day ;-). The implementation in ftraster should/could
> disappear. It also appears that the *true* FT_Outline_Decompose should live
> in ftoutln.c, and not in ftobjs.c. But apparently the entire ftoutln.c file
> is optional, so that might explain why it *isn't* there:
> FT_Outline_Decompose is not optional after all... Still, I would've made
> ftoutln.c mandatory, and just use some #ifdefs around the optional bits.
> Just my 2 cents.
> 
Just, I think you're right on the spot, I'll make changes to the code to
reflect your proposal :-)

- David

> Just