Yoshiki.Ohshima at acm.org writes:

>   Does StrikeFont implement isMonospaced?  I don't see it in 3.4
> image.

It's in the Telnet package.  I'm probably one of the few people who
has it loaded in a Windows image along with TrueTypeTextStyle.

>   Well, methods like #isMonospaced make sense only when the graphical
> representation of a string is the concatenation of the grachics of
> "characters" in it.  Also, the fonts being used for Japanese terminal
> emulators are mixture of two different spacing; often called
> full-width and half-width.  It should also work as expected if the
> internal logic of the terminal emulator knows how to handle it.

Interesting.
 
>   Also, the right thing to do in the future for a method like
> #widthOf: would be to get aString, instead of aCharacter as argument.

There's AbstractFont>>widthOfString:.  Is asking a font how much space
its representation of a character needs fundamentally incorrect?

> > I explain all this because at first it seemed like the TTCFont didn't
> > implement something it should've, but I no longer think so.  Maybe
> > #maxWidth is another question every font should answer.  However, I know
> > almost nothing about fonts.
> 
>   #maxWidth is also tricky...  If possible, I'd recommend to avoid it.

I guess you say this for the same reason you comment on #widthOf: and
since I don't understand that, I don't understand this.  Usually I am
a mere font user, and that only as a reader, but I had just run into
the Telnet/TrueTypeTextStyle package conflict when Diego asked about
#maxWidth. 

Thanks,
Steve