> > No -- the RE macro in groff is Clark's original code. Until now there
> > were never any complaints, but it is probably an enhancement to use
> > the code from dvips. Opinions?
>
> There could not be any complaints since any font was reencoded only
> once, thus there were no two fonts with t
Dear Werner,
On Sun, 12 Feb 2006, Werner LEMBERG wrote:
But the similar routine in dvips has
{ 1 index /FID ne 2 index /UniqueID ne and
{def} {pop pop} ifelse } forall
Did you consider that UniqueID issue?
No -- the RE macro in groff is Clark's original code. Until now there
w
> But the similar routine in dvips has
>
> { 1 index /FID ne 2 index /UniqueID ne and
>{def} {pop pop} ifelse } forall
>
> Did you consider that UniqueID issue?
No -- the RE macro in groff is Clark's original code. Until now there
were never any complaints, but it is probably an en
> The unicode-font patch will need to retrieve the name of a given
> glyph. [...]
Bruno, I've applied all your patch sets. Again, thanks a lot! For
orthogonality, I've done some renaming (mainly `glyph_t' to `glyph' --
I really dislike the `_t' suffix). Besides that, nothing has changed.
Dear Werner,
one more quetsion:
in groff PS output reencoding of fonts is dome by the RE routine
with the following code within:
{
1 index/FID ne{def}{pop pop}ifelse
}forall
But the similar routine in dvips has
{ 1 index /FID ne 2 index /UniqueID ne and
{def} {pop pop} ifelse } foral
