On Thu, Sep 3, 2015 at 11:09 AM, Nikolay Sivov bunglehead@gmail.com wrote:
On 03.09.2015 19:36, Erich E. Hoover wrote:
...
Format 1 case looks fine, though I think it's better to reuse existing tables if possible for get_standard_glyph_name().
It looks like the existing tables are not in the right order, but I can use the GN_<name> values to make the table.
- else if(post_header->format == MAKELONG(0, 2))
- {
if(index < 258)
get_standard_glyph_name(index, name);
else
FIXME("PostScript Format 2 custom glyph names are currently
unsupported.\n");
- }
Format 2 case looks wrong, according to specs you need to use glyphNameIndex entry value, check it against [0,257] range and if it's in you can use standard name list.
The index we are passed is the glyphNameIndex entry value, so there's no need to go through the table for those indices. For indices greater than 257 a "patch 2" would allow you to get the glyph name by finding the appropriate string in the table. I can happily prepare such a patch.
- else
FIXME("Only standard PostScript Format 1 glyph names are
currently supported.\n");
I think it's better to make explicit message for Format 3, as it's specified and could be used by some. And after it generic fixme with unrecognized format value printed in a message.
Will do.
Best, Erich