unicode as valid naming symbols

Chris Angelico rosuav at gmail.com
Sat Mar 29 23:01:57 CET 2014

On Sun, Mar 30, 2014 at 5:11 AM, Dennis Lee Bieber
<wlfraed at ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>         Considering that a 5x8 bitmap font (which is unlikely to even have
> enough pixels to produce even 65536 unique glyphs) would take 5.6MB for
> your (17*65536), I wouldn't want to see what an algorithmic description
> would require.
>         Looking at some of my collection of fonts, TTF and some PS, seem to be
> running around 100kB per font, and those fonts likely have around 128-192
> glyphs.
>         For 1114112 glyphs (17*65536) at, say 164 glyphs pre 100kB gives 680MB
> per FONT. Assume the standards: normal, bold, italic, bold-italic -- one is
> now up to 2.7GB per typeface. 5.4GB to support just one serif and one sans
> serif typeface.

Most fonts these days are vector, not bitmap, but a 5x8 bitmap has
forty pixels, any of which can be either on or off - that gives
roughly twice as much data space as the 21-bit Unicode spec. Plenty of
room for 17*65536 unique glyphs. But you're right that it'd then take
~5-6MB to store that, minimum.


More information about the Python-list mailing list