-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 8
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
"friendly names" #48
Comments
PaintBaseGlyph? PaintSimpleGlyph? |
There's exactly ZERO overlap. Indeed, they are expected to be chained together mooooooost of the time. The
So what's the overlap again?!!!!
|
Thinking more, grouping can be done now that we have a full DAG. So |
Also specially since we are using |
Let me review and see if I can recommend some of the offsets to be elevated to |
I suggest upgrading all This is particularly concerning:
|
Oh you are right, thank you, will fix. |
The name PaintGlyph for format 6 doesn't clearly indicate what is distinctive about it vs. PaintColrGlyph.
The latter provides a color composition (an entire tree) for re-use. It's functionality has a lot of overlap with Transform (format 4); it's just that ColrGlyph uses a GID while the Transform uses a paint offset, and Transform includes a 2x3 while ColrGlyph doesn't. These are more similar than ColorGlyph is to Glyph.
PaintGlyph provides a geometry and fill, and it's the only way to put a fill into a geometry. But "PaintGlyph" doesn't really indicate that.
PaintColrGlyph reasonably indicates its functionality since it references a composition by the base glyph ID.
But perhaps "PaintGlyph" could be replaced with something like "PaintGlyphWithFill" or PaintOutlineWithFill?
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: