Re: [Freeglut-developer] Old business on fonts

[Richard R. <sf...@ol...>]

On Thu, Jan 15, 2004 at 08:55:31AM -0600, Fay John F Contr AAC/WMG wrote:
> Gentlemen,
> 
> 	A few months ago we had a discussion about unifying the font
> interface.  We decided that since the bitmap and stroke fonts were
> completely different, there was no sense in making a unified interface with
> calls like "glutFontCharacter ( void *font, int character )".  Just before
> that discussion, however, we had a separate discussion about adding four new
> calls:
> 
> FGAPI float   FGAPIENTRY glutBitmapXOrig( void* fontID );
> FGAPI float   FGAPIENTRY glutStrokeXOrig( void* fontID );
> FGAPI float   FGAPIENTRY glutBitmapYOrig( void* fontID );
> FGAPI float   FGAPIENTRY glutStrokeYOrig( void* fontID );

At one time there was a consensus to have a "depth" or "descender"
(generally non-negative distance of the lowest point in the
font below the baseline).  (A floating symbol might have a negative
descender.)

This would be a character-dependant value, not global to the font.
(To match the other functions, there should probably be a string
version, as well.)

I'm not sure that there is a need for the horizontal attribute.
Is there any reason not to just guarantee that the font glyphs are never
rendered to the left of the indicated position?


Of course, my memory is not known for its robustness.  (^&


> For bitmapped fonts the calls would return the x- and y-coordinates of the
> character's origin (stored in the font data); for the moment the stroke
> fonts would be dummy calls that return zeroes.
> 
> 	Was there any conclusion on this other discussion?  I don't remember
> what there was, if any.  My personal copy of "freeglut" has these calls but
> the CVS version does not.

I haven't worried much about new features in a while.  (^&


-- 
  "I probably don't know what I'm talking about."  http://www.olib.org/~rkr/