From a85461b9b6367d5ce313c800f9efc6a1ad750616 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Behdad Esfahbod Date: Wed, 20 Apr 2022 12:13:16 -0600 Subject: [PATCH] Add link to Context LookupFlag discussion https://github.com/harfbuzz/harfbuzz/discussions/3538 --- src/hb-ot-layout-gsubgpos.hh | 9 ++++----- 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/hb-ot-layout-gsubgpos.hh b/src/hb-ot-layout-gsubgpos.hh index 3faa1e53d..904916804 100644 --- a/src/hb-ot-layout-gsubgpos.hh +++ b/src/hb-ot-layout-gsubgpos.hh @@ -1457,11 +1457,10 @@ static inline void apply_lookup (hb_ot_apply_context_t *c, * NOT the one after it. * * - If buffer length was decreased by n, it does not necessarily - * mean that n match positions where removed, as there might - * have been marks and default-ignorables in the sequence. We - * should instead drop match positions between current-position - * and current-position + n instead. Though, am not sure which - * one is better. Both cases have valid uses. Sigh. + * mean that n match positions where removed, as there recursed-to + * lookup might had a different LookupFlag. Here's a constructed + * case of that: + * https://github.com/harfbuzz/harfbuzz/discussions/3538 * * It should be possible to construct tests for both of these cases. */