get_glyph_shape() should be a method of Font rather than DrawFuncs about uharfbuzz HOT 6 CLOSED

Makes sense. We probably should take a step back and re-design this API as it was designed before the final HarfBuzz API was settled on, and may be make a breaking change this this time since it is getting really convoluted.

from uharfbuzz.

Also, I think get_glyph_shape() should have a draw_data argument. But see harfbuzz/harfbuzz#3765, I'm not sure I understand that argument.

from uharfbuzz.

Yes, that is the main reason I think the Python API needs to be redesigned. When it was written there was no draw_data.

from uharfbuzz.

It's already pretty close to being a good parallel to the C API, I don't think that it needs a big redesign. We should just make get_glyph_shape a method of Font, and add the draw_data argument.

draw_data is better than user_data for FontGoggles and draw_glyph_with_pen, as in both cases we can use a singleton DrawFuncs instance instead of instantiating a new one for every single call.

from uharfbuzz.

I think the complication would be adapting the convoluted (but probably necessary) way in which pure Python callaback functions are wrapped.

from uharfbuzz.

Right, I see. Also, the pure Python callbacks are a much simplified version of the C callbacks. Yeah, more thinking and designing would be good.

from uharfbuzz.