-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 51
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
More alternate layer fixes #839
Merged
Merged
Changes from all commits
Commits
Show all changes
6 commits
Select commit
Hold shift + click to select a range
16ad43c
Fix glyphs without alternate layers which use components which have a…
simoncozens 49694ec
If we generate glyphs, production_name can end up being None, don't s…
simoncozens c8eef78
Use simpler, more substainable naming scheme for alternate layer glyphs
simoncozens 0655734
Fix tests to reflect new(er) alternate glyph naming scheme
simoncozens dabaebc
Add test for #837
simoncozens 2ab424a
Lint fix
simoncozens File filter
Filter by extension
Conversations
Failed to load comments.
Loading
Jump to
Jump to file
Failed to load files.
Loading
Diff view
Diff view
There are no files selected for viewing
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Oops, something went wrong.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
do we need to keep both "BRACKET" and "varAlt" in the same name? Aren't the two labels supposed to convey the same meaning?
how about either just "BRACKET.01" or "varAlt01"?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
We do lose a lot of the information that was previously baked in the (arguably quite long) glyph name before.
I wonder what order does this varAlt01, 02, 03, naming etc. follows? Is it deterministic at least?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
We don't need to keep both, but I went this way because I think we want to keep something which is unmistakably bracket-related, for the various regex-based tests to work; and I went with
varAlt01
because that's what Glyphs adds.There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
if varAlt01 is what Glyphs.app uses, I'd say let's go for that one only, and fix related tests.
In what order are the digit suffix in varAlt01, 02, 03 assigned and incremented, in what order? Is it "don't ask too complicated doesn't actually matter" kind of order?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
i see, it depends on stably ordered stuff like glyph order, layer order and order of components within each layer, so at least it's deterministic, it just as eloquent as the previous naming scheme