[HarfBuzz] HarfBuzz API design
behdad at behdad.org
Wed Aug 19 13:36:41 PDT 2009
On 08/19/2009 04:30 PM, Carl Worth wrote:
>> I wanted to keep MPROTECT out of the name. Again, please think about it again
>> without the mode determining whether the blob will be writeable or not. Just
>> as describing the access mode of the input data only. Do you think the
>> current enum makes sense that way?
> Well, if the READONLY_NEVER_DUPLICATE case didn't exist, then it all
> makes perfect sense, yes.
Ok, I remove that entry! There are other ways to inhibit duplication (locking
> But with that value present, there *is* at least one mode (if rarely
> used) where the resulting blob has write operations disabled. And it
> still seems a little odd that code with:
> hb_blob_create (... HB_MEMORY_MODEL_READONLY ...);
> doesn't create such a blob.
Note, it's note "MEMORY_MODEL", it's "MEMORY_MODE".
> No matter. With improved documentation it's likely all just
> fine. You've clearly thought a lot about the names already, and that's
> really all that I can ask. :-)
The WRITEABLE vs WRITABLE bothers me now. So Maybe I change that to
READWRITE. That still leaves "is_writable" and family in the API though.
More information about the HarfBuzz