[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Default face problem
From: |
Kenichi Handa |
Subject: |
Re: Default face problem |
Date: |
Tue, 02 May 2006 09:42:44 +0900 |
User-agent: |
SEMI/1.14.3 (Ushinoya) FLIM/1.14.2 (Yagi-Nishiguchi) APEL/10.2 Emacs/22.0.50 (i686-pc-linux-gnu) MULE/5.0 (SAKAKI) |
In article <address@hidden>, Stefan Monnier <address@hidden> writes:
>>> Yes, it is. But IIRC the font selection mechanism tries to distinguish
>>> between bitmap-scaled and vector-scaled fonts by checking the presence of
>>> another instance of the font, with a non-0 size (i.e. a bitmap font).
>> Which font selection mechanism do you mean here? At least,
>> Emacs doesn't do that. Emacs determines a font is
>> auto-scaled if it's RESY is not zero and POINT_SIZE is zero.
> Hmm... maybe I'm confusing things. At least I remember that at some point,
> there was a special case where a bitmap font of a slightly different size
> than requested was preferred over a scaled (whether bitmap or vector) font.
Yes. At least that is true. The macro
FONT_POINT_SIZE_QUANTUM (defined as 5 in xfaces.c) plays a
role here. After getting a list of fonts,
best_matching_font () at first checks all bitmap fonts to
find a font matching exactly with the face request. At that
time, the difference of point sizes less than
FONT_POINT_SIZE_QUANTUM is ignored. And if a exactly
matching (bitmap) font is found, it is returned without
further checking scalable fonts.
---
Kenichi Handa
address@hidden
- Re: Default face problem, Kim F. Storm, 2006/05/01
- Re: Default face problem, Stefan Monnier, 2006/05/01
- Re: Default face problem, Kenichi Handa, 2006/05/08
- Re: Default face problem, Kim F. Storm, 2006/05/08
- Re: Default face problem, Kenichi Handa, 2006/05/08
- Re: Default face problem, Kim F. Storm, 2006/05/08
- Re: Default face problem, Kenichi Handa, 2006/05/10
- Re: Default face problem, Kim F. Storm, 2006/05/10
- Re: Default face problem, Kenichi Handa, 2006/05/10