Skip to content
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

Prefix wasm objects and functions with *something* #4457

Open
behdad opened this issue Oct 21, 2023 · 5 comments
Open

Prefix wasm objects and functions with *something* #4457

behdad opened this issue Oct 21, 2023 · 5 comments

Comments

@behdad
Copy link
Member

behdad commented Oct 21, 2023

(motivated by #4456)

The current no prefix (face_create) etc is really bad. I'm not sure what to prefix with. Just wasm_?

@khaledhosny
Copy link
Collaborator

Do we expect this API to be implementable as is by non-HarfBuzz implementations? if no, I’d go with hb_wasm_ or wasm_hb_ since they are very HarfBuzz-specific.

@behdad
Copy link
Member Author

behdad commented Oct 24, 2023

@simoncozens expressed in another thread, that he's fine with just wasm_.

Do we expect this API to be implementable as is by non-HarfBuzz implementations?

That was my intention. But realistically I don't expect them to.

if no, I’d go with hb_wasm_ or wasm_hb_ since they are very HarfBuzz-specific.

Maybe hb_wasm_ then. Fortunately it's just a macro and can be easily changed.

@behdad
Copy link
Member Author

behdad commented Oct 24, 2023

Maybe wasm_hb_ is less confusing.

@behdad
Copy link
Member Author

behdad commented Oct 24, 2023

Humm. It's not as simple as changing a macro. The type names also need to change, and the macros.

I wonder if we should use the hb_ prefix for the simple types like codepoint_t, position_t, mask_t, tag_t, direction_t, where the definition matches the regular API.

@khaledhosny
Copy link
Collaborator

I wonder if we should use the hb_ prefix for the simple types like codepoint_t, position_t, mask_t, tag_t, direction_t, where the definition matches the regular API.

I think it makes sense, yes.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

2 participants