The code that is being removed is untested and does not seem to make
fixing an overflow any easier. The fixer code just needs to know
which subtable caused the overflow and does not care about the item
within. As such, no point in trying to find a "right" item.
In fact, leaving item as is, is more useful in debugging overflows
as it reflects which item's offset actually overflowed.
Part of fixing https://github.com/behdad/fonttools/issues/537
According to the spec:
> The lookupflag attribute defaults to 0 at the start of a feature
> block.
>
> The lookupflag attribute stays the same until explicitly changed, until
> a lookup reference statement is encountered that changes it, until the
> script is changed, or until the end of the feature.
This is an attempt to fix this by resetting the lookupflag at the start
and end of feature/lookup blacks. I’m not sure if resetting it in lookup
blocks is correct (my reading of the spec suggests it is not), but one
needs to test this against makeotf and see how it behaves here.
otherwise `not NotImplemented` (always False) is returned from __ne__ when `type(self) != type(other)`, leading to illogic results like:
>>> from fontTools.ttLib.tables.DefaultTable import DefaultTable
>>> t = DefaultTable('test')
>>> t == 0
False
>>> t != 0
False
The latter of course should return True.
previously assertEqual would fail, despite the `program` attributes where both empty, as the object have different id(). The Program.__eq__ method now compares self.__dict__ == other.__dict__, hence the test pass.
Unlike simple glyphs (with contours) which must always have `instructionLength`, the field is optional in composite glyphs and depends on whether `WE_HAVE_INSTR` flag is set:
https://www.microsoft.com/typography/otspec/glyf.htm
In the previous code, the TTGlyphPen was adding an empty `program` attribute to any new glyph, including composite glyphs. It should only do it for simple glyphs.
For example, if you take Roboto-Regular.ttf from here:
https://github.com/google/roboto/releases/tag/v2.129
The font (unhinted) was compiled using the ttGlyphPen. It has 1434 composite glyphs. For each of them, a USHORT value for the number of instructions (0) is written, so the binary ttf is 2.868 KB greater than
what it should be.
Apparently string slices are not as smart as I was hoping for.
Slicing a looong (say, 1MB) string and holding onto it is not a
good idea if done thousands of times. So, do fewer slicings and
decompile subtables immediately instead of holding onto data.
This makes me want to rethink the kind of data structures we use
for lazy processing.
Fixes https://github.com/behdad/fonttools/issues/317
In the long term, we might want to make a different low-level API
for building ChainContextPos lookups; for now, this should fix the
current bug with SequenceIndex.
Resolves https://github.com/behdad/fonttools/issues/517.
There should be no semantic difference from this change,
since dependent lookups (the chain targets) are never directly
invoked by a feature. But the output of feaLib becomes more
similar to the output of makeotf, which helps debugging.
Before this change, we had only emitted a SinglePos (GPOS type 1) lookup
for a statement like `pos A' B' 20`; after this change, we always emit a
chain rule even if there is no context. There is a semantic difference if
the rule is preceded by a `ignore pos` statement. Omitting context-free
contextual chains was actually not a (premature) optimization, but an
artifact that came from the representation of glyph patterns.
https://github.com/behdad/fonttools/issues/516
After this change, feaLib generates the exact same output as makeotf
for the test case in `bug453.fea`. Before this change, feaLib had
rejected the input as malformed.
Our new behavior is in blatant violation of the OpenType Feature File
Syntax specification, which writes: "NOTE! If a GDEF table is not
explicitly defined in the feature file, [...] all mark glyph classes
must be disjoint". However:
1. makeotf does not enforce this constraint;
2. existing feature files happily define non-disjoint markClasses;
3. existing tools such as the Glyphs font editor generate feature files
with non-disjoint markClasses;
4. it is not obvious what the intention of this constraint would be.
Therefore, fewLib now follows the makeotf implementation, intentionally
ignoring what is mandated by the specification. I've proposed a spec change
at https://github.com/adobe-type-tools/afdko/issues/106.
Resolves https://github.com/behdad/fonttools/issues/453.
Apparently I need to do that, or the child python process does not see fontTools in the path.
Another workaround woud be to ensure that fontTools is installed, at least in editable or develop mode (via `pip install -e .`). But the way we temporarily extend the PYTHONPATH in run-test.sh is less intrusive.
There are no examples for `ignore pos` in the OpenType Feature File
Syntax specification, therefore using a made-up example for the test.
The output from feaLib is identical to what makeotf generates.
Resolves https://github.com/behdad/fonttools/issues/503.
This is another test case for the `ignore sub` statement.
After the recent changes to feaLib, the output is now identical
to the output generated by makeotf.
https://github.com/behdad/fonttools/issues/503
This makes the output of feaLib more compact, using a similar technique
as seems to be used by makeotf.
After this change, feaLib generates output that more similar to makeotf:
* For the test cases in `bug512.fea` and `bug463.fea`, feaLib now
generates the exact same output as makeotf v2.0.90.
* For the test cases in `GSUB_6.fea`, it is hard to say because makeotf
crashes on the test file; our test contains language constructs that
are valid according to the spec, but didn't yet get implemented by makeotf.
When commenting out those constructs, feaLib generates the exact same
output as makeotf v2.0.90.
* For the test cases in `feature_aalt.fea`, the output of feaLib is now
structually the same as the output of makeotf v2.0.90. However, two
lookups are in different order. feaLib's ordering reflects the order
of statements in the compiled input source; no idea why makeotf would
want to reverse the ordering. Since this ordering difference only
affects the _targets_ of chain substitutions, there is no semantic
difference.
Resolves https://github.com/behdad/fonttools/issues/512.
Although this construct is in violation of the `ignore sub` grammar
given by the current OpenType Feature File syntax specification,
the very same specification document illustrates (in example 3
of section 5.f.ii) the `ignore sub` statement with a comma-separated
list of backgrack/input/lookahead triples.
See https://github.com/adobe-type-tools/afdko/issues/105 for a request
to amend the OpenType Feature File syntax specification.
After this code change, feaLib can now parse testdata/spec5f_ii_3.fea;
the output is identical to what is generated by Adobe's makeotf tool.
https://github.com/behdad/fonttools/issues/503
For this construct, makeotf throws an error: "Contextual alternate
rule not yet supported". If it had been implemented, we speculate
that the ordering would likely be the same as with other contextual
substitutions (the chain comes before, not after, the dependent lookup).
https://github.com/behdad/fonttools/issues/507
Before this change, the `script` statement had inherited global
defaults. After this change, it overrides them. The new behavior
matches the behavior of makeotf v2.0.90.
Resolves https://github.com/behdad/fonttools/issues/505.
For the test case of https://github.com/behdad/fonttools/issues/501,
which was about an unrelated problem, feaLib now produces the exact
same output as makeotf v2.0.90.
Although the specification writes the exact opposite, makeotf does
accept script and language statements inside named lookup blocks.
Since Glyphs.app (and possibly other tools, too) produce feature files
that make use of this syntax, enforcing the spec would break existing
files.
Resolves https://github.com/behdad/fonttools/issues/501.
