[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Proposed change for z1load.c
From: |
Tom Kacvinsky |
Subject: |
Re: Proposed change for z1load.c |
Date: |
Mon, 16 Oct 2000 08:19:03 -0400 (EDT) |
I would if I could guarantee that the font had a /.notdef glyph in it. When I
was at TUG 2000, HAn The Thanh told me that he has run into fonts that have no
/.notdef glyh in the CharStrings dictionary!
Perhaps we could cook up an unencrypted /.notdef would would disasm to this:
0 333 hsbw endchar
and add that to the charstrings dictionary if the font doesn't provide one on
its own.
I'll look into the swapping you are talking about in z1load.c.
Tom
On Sun, 15 Oct 2000, Werner LEMBERG wrote:
>
> > Attached is patch for z1load.c. I don't want to commit it without
> > review.
>
> What about flipping the indices of .notdef and the glyph with index 0
> in case .notdef doesn't have index 0?
>
>
> Werner
>
- Proposed change for z1load.c, Tom Kacvinsky, 2000/10/15
- Re: Proposed change for z1load.c, Werner LEMBERG, 2000/10/16
- Re: Proposed change for z1load.c,
Tom Kacvinsky <=
- Re: Proposed change for z1load.c, Just van Rossum, 2000/10/16
- Re: Proposed change for z1load.c, Werner LEMBERG, 2000/10/16
- Newer proposed change for z1load.c, Tom Kacvinsky, 2000/10/16
- Re: Newer proposed change for z1load.c, Tom Kacvinsky, 2000/10/16
- Re: Newer proposed change for z1load.c, Leonard Rosenthol, 2000/10/16
- Re: Newer proposed change for z1load.c, Tom Kacvinsky, 2000/10/16
- Re: Newer proposed change for z1load.c, Leonard Rosenthol, 2000/10/16
- Re: Newer proposed change for z1load.c, Werner LEMBERG, 2000/10/17
- Re: Newer proposed change for z1load.c, Tom Kacvinsky, 2000/10/17