We read every piece of feedback, and take your input very seriously.
To see all available qualifiers, see our documentation.
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
Hi! 👋
Firstly, thanks for your work on this project! even if it does seem to be abandoned nowadays 🙂
Today I used patch-package to patch [email protected] for the project I'm working on.
[email protected]
Here is the diff that solved my problem:
diff --git a/node_modules/fontkit/src/glyph/CFFGlyph.js b/node_modules/fontkit/src/glyph/CFFGlyph.js index 70c0aab..bab169c 100644 --- a/node_modules/fontkit/src/glyph/CFFGlyph.js +++ b/node_modules/fontkit/src/glyph/CFFGlyph.js @@ -546,7 +546,7 @@ export default class CFFGlyph extends Glyph { let startx = x; let starty = y; - pts = []; + let pts = []; for (let i = 0; i <= 4; i++) { x += stack.shift(); y += stack.shift();
This issue body was partially generated by patch-package.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered:
This wasn't the right fix.
There are various scoping issues throughout this file that lead to errors for certain fonts.
In the end I moved the initialisation of lots of variables to the top level so that the order in which they hit various case statements didn't matter.
It would probably be better to block scope each case statement instead though and initialize as required within them.
Sorry, something went wrong.
No branches or pull requests
Hi! 👋
Firstly, thanks for your work on this project! even if it does seem to be abandoned nowadays 🙂
Today I used patch-package to patch
[email protected]
for the project I'm working on.Here is the diff that solved my problem:
This issue body was partially generated by patch-package.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: