Shachar Shemesh schreef:
Maarten Lankhorst wrote:
Shachar Shemesh schreef:
Maarten Lankhorst wrote:
If you want it back try replacing this in font.c: WINE_GCPW_FORCE_RTL:WINE_GCPW_FORCE_LTR change FORCE to LOOSE, it should work then.
I'm not sure what you are suggesting.
WINE_GCPW_FORCE_RTL only appear on line 1089 of bidi.c, which reads
case WINE_GCPW_FORCE_RTL: forcedir = R; baselevel = 1; break;
I'm not sure what you are suggesting I do with it.
Either way, the change you are suggesting will only affect (if I understand the code correctly) the paragraph direction setting, where as I'm experiencing total lack of BiDi reordering of any kind.
Before arguing, you should really give it a try, it helps. ;-)
Sure thing. Just what, exactly, is "it"? What do you suggest I change, and what to? I am really asking you to be less ambiguous.
If you mean to change the "FORCE" to "LOOSE", then things are slightly better in that same direction runs are at least now being reordered, but things are still at a huge regression. Neutrals (at least some neutrals, like space) seem to be incorrectly handled in mixed paragraphs (I'm not sure, as this could be a font problem as well). Also, and this is confirmed, there is now no way to request a right to left paragraph, at all. Numbers I haven't checked.
Again, I may have misunderstood what change you meant for me to try. If you don't want to be misunderstood, try just sending a patch. I'm more than willing to help, but not if it means trying to decrypt what code changes you are suggesting, or where in the 1200 lines file they are meant to be.
forcedir means basically force every not-control character to that direction.
Which doesn't ring a bell as far as the Annex 9. I don't recall any such thing there. They had a notion of "paragraph direction", which did affect NEUTRALS, and only if they were placed on the border between conflicting direction runs (and also the initial nesting level, of course). The ONLY thing I recall that could cause a hard RTL or hard LTR character to be rendered in the opposite direction was an LRO/RLO, which was never used here. Thus, I say again, the change you offer seem out of place in relation to the place you offer it, and it seems to me that there is an error in your implementation of Annex 9.
I may have slightly misunderstood those flags then. I was under the impression that the FORCE flags would be similar to LRO/RLO. Instead they are probably more like LRE/RLE. If that is a real problem I will send in a patch. I would still rather prefer a real bidi implementation, so that selecting and deleting characters would work properly. To my defense, there was no real clarification for them in the source.
Cheers, Maarten