[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: bug in ae virtual fonts, or in fontinst, or in vptovf/vftovp?
- To: Vladimir Volovich <email@example.com>
- Subject: Re: bug in ae virtual fonts, or in fontinst, or in vptovf/vftovp?
- From: Olaf Weber <firstname.lastname@example.org>
- Date: 13 Jan 1999 14:25:20 +0100
- Cc: "Berthold K.P. Horn" <email@example.com>, firstname.lastname@example.org, email@example.com, firstname.lastname@example.org, email@example.com
- In-Reply-To: Vladimir Volovich's message of "27 Sep 1998 19:09:32 +0400"
Vladimir Volovich writes:
> "BKPH" == Berthold K P Horn writes:
>>> % vftovp aer10.vf aer10.tfm aer10.vpl Bad VF file: Oversize
>>> dimension has been reset to zero.
> BKPH> I don't know whether this is the same issue, but many VF files
> BKPH> insert absurd rules with semi-infinite negative dimensions. I
> BKPH> reported on this before, wondering whether this was some
> BKPH> special marker used for some obscure purpose. Of course, it
> BKPH> doesn't print because the dimension is negative, but what is it
> BKPH> for, and where does it come from?
> Note, that the original VPL file contained a zero-width rule (i.e. not
> with "semi-infinite negative dimensions"):
> (CHARACTER D 23 (COMMENT compwordmark)
> (CHARWD R 0.0)
> (CHARHT R 4.29993)
> (CHARDP R 0.0)
> (SETRULE R 4.29993 R 0.0)
> So perhaps this shows a bug in vptovf? Or is vftovp incorrectly
> "interpreting" a zero width? Anyway, it looks like a bug in
> vptovf/vftovp, and not a bug in fontinst/ae fonts.
It looks like this was due to a bug in vftovp that was corrected in
the August 1998 release of vptovf (version 1.5) which had been found
by Wayne Sullivan. This bug resulted in the semi-infinite negative
dimensions seen by Berthold.
The bug should be fixed in recent teTeX-0.9 snapshots, and will be
fixed in the upcoming web2c 7.3.
The following change summarizes the fix:
@x  Correct a bug found by Wayne G. Sullivan
if x>0 then negative:=false
if x>=0 then negative:=false