Uh oh!
There was an error while loading.Please reload this page.
- Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork7.9k
Reduce numerical precision in Type 1 fonts#18080
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 ourterms of service andprivacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub?Sign in to your account
Uh oh!
There was an error while loading.Please reload this page.
Conversation
lib/matplotlib/type1font.py Outdated
| as_string = '[' + ' '.join(str(x) for x in array) + ']' | ||
| return as_string.encode('latin-1') | ||
| return ( | ||
| '[' + ' '.join(f'{x:.5g}' for x in array) + ']' |
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.
perhaps .5f instead?
(I'm currently away from doing real reviewing so don't wait for me, but the PR certainly looks reasonable.)
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 cannot comment on g vs. f, but I would prefer
| '['+' '.join(f'{x:.5g}'forxinarray)+']' | |
| '[%s]'%' '.join(f'{x:.5g}'forxinarray) |
which is slightly more readable IMHO. But I won't block over this.
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.
(the problem with 'g' is exponent notation: does postscript actually support notation such as '1e4'? (I don't know))
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.
Postscript supports exponent notation:
NumbersNumbers in the PostScript language include signed integers, such as
123 –98 43445 0 +17
reals, such as
–.002 34.5 –3.62 123.6e10 1E–5 –1. 0.0
and radix numbers, such as
8#1777 16#FFFE 2#1000
https://www.adobe.com/content/dam/acom/en/devnet/actionscript/articles/psrefman.pdf page 27
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.
Ah, that's fine then.
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.
Yeah, I thought we should keep a small number of significant digits instead of just rounding to a fixed number of decimals. But on second thought there is little point, since the scale is fixed: fonts are written in terms of 1000 or 1024 units as the side of the design square, so the values on the diagonal are around 0.001. The off-diagonal values are either zero or of similar magnitude as 0.001, otherwise there is no visible effect. We can as well use %f.
This avoids exponential notation (which is supported by PS but whoknows how all the different parsers react to it) and trailing zeros,so we don't unnecessarily increase the size of fonts that have anice [0.001 0 0 0.001] matrix.Encapsulate the formatting operation in a cbook function and giveit a unit test.
Thanks@jkseppan ! Have not heard from you in a while, I hope you and your family are doing well. |
Uh oh!
There was an error while loading.Please reload this page.
Fixes#16087
PR Summary
Numbers such as
seem to confuse some PostScript parsers, so output fewer digits when changing the angle of a font.
PR Checklist