Subject: Re: Superscript (run?) bug
From: sam th (sam@bur-jud-118-039.rh.uchicago.edu)
Date: Thu Jun 01 2000 - 01:14:33 CDT
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
On Thu, 1 Jun 2000, Martin Sevior wrote:
>
>
> On Wed, 31 May 2000 montgome@montgomerie.net wrote:
>
> > Quoting Martin Sevior
> > <msevior@mccubbin.ph.unimelb.edu.au>:
> > > I noticed something like this when developing the
> > improved underlining
> > > code but I couldn't reproduce it. I'll try to fix it
> > since it might be my
> > > fault. Thanks for the detailed bug report and
> > document. The lack of
> > > underlining is a good clue as to what is going on.
> > >
> >
> > I may be misunderstanding what you're saying, but there
> > is no 'lack of underlining', as far as I can see
> > (though, with the second example, the underlining is in
> > the wrong place).
> >
>
> I meant that the underlining is wrong too. This indicates that the
> method "isSuperscript()" is returning the wrong result for part of the
> run. I suspect that the line breaking code is not setting text attributes
> correctly for its new run after breaking a long run. Another reason why
> getPoint()->isSuperscript() would be a good thing.
Does run breaking vary with length of the run? Becuase the only
noticeable difference between the document that behaves properly and the
one that doesn't is that the text runs are shorter. I always figured that
didn't matter.
sam th
sam@uchicago.edu
http://sam.rh.uchicago.edu
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.0.1 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: For info see http://www.gnupg.org
iD8DBQE5Nf9Lt+kM0Mq9M/wRAqZhAJ9Qe5K4xpIlnk4Lw8U0bpU7ND0FUACgsJZ6
Jg9lGGBsYRdJ3WYjIL4WKnY=
=mPZc
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b25 : Thu Jun 01 2000 - 01:14:38 CDT