Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > comp.lang.postscript > #3753

Final request for feedback

Show all headers | View raw

Hi All,

I'm about to publish my UTF-8 code.  Before I do I'm asking for feedback
and opinions for what should be the last time.

What's different about what I'm finally intending to publish:

1. I'm using a dictionary for the UNICODE encoding map, instead of
sparse array.  This isn't because it's faster -- 3ns slower seems quite
acceptable -- and a dictionary is bigger -- over double the size for
GNU's UnifontMedium.  I'm doing this because it's two less files to
publish -- I don't need to publish sparseget and I don't need to publish
an AWK script to convert Fontforge .g2n files into a sparse array.

2. I've replaced utf8show with utf8decode (which generates an array of
UNICODE values) and unicodeshow.

3. I'm not storing the map in the font, but passing it as a parameter to
unicodeshow because I think it's simpler.  Storing it in the font means
defining a new font (definefont).

These are the alternative programs for printing a UTF-8 string.

This is what I think I'll publish:

   %!PS
   %%IncludeResource: procset unicodeshow
   %%IncludeResource: procset utf8decode
   /Helvetica 20 selectfont
   100 300 moveto
   (Welcome to \342\200\234UTF-8\342\200\235 \342\230\272) utf8decode
   ReverseAdobeGlyphList exch unicodeshow
   showpage

This is what I was previously intending, using a dictionary:

   %!PS
   %%IncludeResource: procset unicodefont
   %%IncludeResource: procset unicodeshow
   %%IncludeResource: procset utf8decode
   /Helvetica findfont 20 scalefont ReverseAdobeGlyphList unicodefont
   /MyFont exch definefont setfont
   100 300 moveto
   (Welcome to \342\200\234UTF-8\342\200\235 \342\230\272) utf8decode
   unicodeshow
   showpage

There's one extra line if using a sparse array instead of a dictionary:

   %%IncludeResource: procset sparseget

I think the first is better but am open to opposing opinions.

Thanks,

David

Back to comp.lang.postscript | Previous | Next — Next in thread | Find similar

Thread

Final request for feedback David Newall <davidn@davidnewall.com> - 2022-02-20 14:11 +1100
  Re: Final request for feedback luser droog <luser.droog@gmail.com> - 2022-02-22 07:36 -0800
    Composite fonts for Unicode strings (was: Final request for feedback) Carlos <carlos@cvkm.cz> - 2022-02-26 01:44 +0100
      Re: Composite fonts for Unicode strings (was: Final request for feedback) David Newall <davidn@davidnewall.com> - 2022-02-28 21:39 +1100
      Re: Composite fonts for Unicode strings (was: Final request for feedback) David Newall <davidn@davidnewall.com> - 2022-02-28 22:26 +1100
  Re: Final request for feedback Carlos <carlos@cvkm.cz> - 2022-02-26 01:56 +0100

csiph-web