On Mon, 16 Feb 2026 at 15:48, luigi scarso <[email protected]> wrote:
> > > On Sun, 15 Feb 2026 at 21:34, David Chiang <[email protected]> > wrote: > >> I see that part of my problem was creating glyph nodes with subtype 0 and >> I should use subtype 1 instead. >> >> But to be clear, these are the cases I found surprising: >> >> local a = node.new('glyph', 0) >> node.protect_glyph(a) >> node.protect_glyph(a) >> print(a.subtype) -- expected 256, actual 512 >> node.unprotect_glyph(a) >> node.unprotect_glyph(a) >> print(a.subtype) -- expected 0, actual 256 >> >> local b = node.new('disc') >> local c = node.new('glyph', 'character') >> b.replace = c >> node.unprotect_glyph(b) >> print(c.subtype) -- expected 1, actual 65281 >> >> >> The second case (expected 0, actual 256) is explained by what you wrote: >> >> we make an exception for 256 which can be used when >>> no subtype is set which makes it possible to disable unprotection. >>> >> >> But the first case still seems surprising to me, and the third case >> really looks like a bug to me. >> > > I will check them later. > > Hans rewrote that part, see the commit https://svn.tug.org:8369/texlive?view=revision&revision=77938 -- luigi >
_______________________________________________ dev-luatex mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
