[HarfBuzz] problem with hb_ot_layout_lookup_would_substitute

[Luis de Bethencourt]

On 7 January 2014 09:51, Behdad Esfahbod <behdad at behdad.org> wrote:

> On 14-01-07 09:16 PM, Werner LEMBERG wrote:
> >
> >> So my question is: what type of documentation do people in the list
> >> want to see the most?  In-line function docs in the comments that
> >> populate the gtk-docs?
> >
> > Each function needs a description, together with an explanation of all
> > parameters, return values, etc., etc. – just think of having a
> > HarfBuzz manpage.
> >
> >> Or external documentation that explains how to use Harfbuzz?
> >
> > This is certainly useful, too.  But I consider the `manpage'
> > documentation quest more important since there are already showcases
> > that demonstrate HarfBuzz quite well.
>
> Sure.  But most of the API is defined in a way that you wouldn't need any
> documentation other than the header file to understand.
>
> For example, there's just no way you need any docs to understand:
>
> void
> hb_set_del_range (hb_set_t       *set,
>                   hb_codepoint_t  first,
>                   hb_codepoint_t  last);
>
> or most of the other type methods.
>
> There are a few number of *core* HB functions that need to be documented,
> over
> and again.  hb_shape() being the main one.  The one you were using wanting
> it
> even more.
>
>
True. Priority is to document the non-obvious API first.

You mention hb_shape(). We could have that on the top of the list. From the
top of your head do you think of anymore?


> I'll try to reprioritize.  But there's just so much time in this life...
>

I understand, which is why I think we should share this task. I'm happy to
write docs, if someone proof checks them.


>
> Cheers, and thanks everyone,
>
> --
> behdad
> http://behdad.org/
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.freedesktop.org/archives/harfbuzz/attachments/20140107/344bfbb0/attachment.html>