<Off-list>

[reply out of date]

Yes, I hope to [approve] it myself in 3.6, after we get the feedback we
need.

Andreas can sure stir things up when he wants to, eh? has this strange
habit of speaking his mind... good thing too, especially if other people
are thinking the same things ;-)

Daniel

Yoshiki.Ohshima at acm.org wrote:
>   Daniel,
> 
> > Yoshiki.Ohshima at acm.org wrote:
> > [Snip about TTFonts]
> > >   But, honestly, I don't think that is a great idea to have an image
> > > that contains the classes that represent the read data structure
> > > without having the reader logic itself.
> > OK, stupid idea on my part. I've given up on any chance for me to add
> > anything coherent to the discussion of this package. I will not object
> > if someone else harvests this da^H^H^H package ;-).
> 
>   On the other hand, I think I can provide the unload mechanism for
> TTF related classes including the existing TTSampleStringMorph.
> 
> > > My feeling is that
> > > I'd be embarrased in some code, but at the same time it is not going
> > > anywhere until it is included.  
> > And what if we do include it and it doesn't go anywhere anyway?
> 
>   It is a possibility, but it doesn't hurt (too much).  Even if it
> exists in the image, a developer can always forget about the detail of
> how strings are rendered, etc. and develop his/her application.
> 
>   For example, something like Nebraska, which forwards the string
> drawing methods on a canvas was made m17n-ready way after we first
> released the m17n image.  But it used to work fine as long as there
> were no extended characters on the screen.
> 
> > I'd like one additional voice saying that it is good enough to be fixed,
> > so that if it get's fubared and you're otherwise occupied, we don't find
> > ourselves stuck. <whisper>3.3a modules</whisper>.
> 
>   3.3a modules was in my mind, too.  But the amount of impact to those
> who doesn't want to deal with the new addtion looks pretty different.
> 
>   Sorry for my *slow* response.  I'm writing this within not too more
> than 12 hours after I've got your post, but this email I'm writing
> looks soooo outdated now.
> 
> -- Yoshiki