[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Be serious about setstrokeadjust in PostScript primitives (issue 866
From: |
Janek Warchoł |
Subject: |
Re: Be serious about setstrokeadjust in PostScript primitives (issue 8663044) |
Date: |
Sat, 27 Apr 2013 22:40:00 +0200 |
2013/4/25 <address@hidden>:
> To give this some perspective: the starting point for this issue, an
> issue about which at least Janek feels strongly enough to repeatedly
> raise a stink because somebody (TM) should be doing something (TM)
> about it,
It was not my intention to demand that somebody is must do something.
If it looked like this, i apologize.
I hadn't known that the issue would be so complicated to fix. Anyway,
i appreciate your efforts a lot, David.
As i see it, we cannot get anything better than a compromise for 2.18.
From what i see, the compromise that David suggests seems to be a
reasonable one, even if the code is - in a way - unreliable.
Janek
- Re: Be serious about setstrokeadjust in PostScript primitives (issue 8663044), (continued)
- Re: Be serious about setstrokeadjust in PostScript primitives (issue 8663044), dak, 2013/04/14
- Re: Be serious about setstrokeadjust in PostScript primitives (issue 8663044), dak, 2013/04/14
- Re: Be serious about setstrokeadjust in PostScript primitives (issue 8663044), k-ohara5a5a, 2013/04/23
- Re: Be serious about setstrokeadjust in PostScript primitives (issue 8663044), dak, 2013/04/23
- Re: Be serious about setstrokeadjust in PostScript primitives (issue 8663044), k-ohara5a5a, 2013/04/24
- Re: Be serious about setstrokeadjust in PostScript primitives (issue 8663044), dak, 2013/04/25
- Re: Be serious about setstrokeadjust in PostScript primitives (issue 8663044), dak, 2013/04/25