Add font-stretch to FontDescription

Add font-stretch to FontDescription

Add FontStretch enum and field to FontDescription and FontTraitsMask.
This is the first step towards supporting the CSS font-stretch
property.

TEST=Source/platform/fonts/FontDescriptionTest.cpp
BUG=347765
R=eseidel@chromium.org

Committed: https://src.chromium.org/viewvc/blink?view=rev&revision=168476

[eseidel, 2014-03-04 02:11:26]

https://codereview.chromium.org/183813005/diff/1/Source/platform/fonts/FontTr...
File Source/platform/fonts/FontTraitsMask.h (right):

https://codereview.chromium.org/183813005/diff/1/Source/platform/fonts/FontTr...
Source/platform/fonts/FontTraitsMask.h:70: FontWeightMask = FontWeight100Mask |
FontWeight200Mask | FontWeight300Mask | FontWeight400Mask | FontWeight500Mask |
FontWeight600Mask | FontWeight700Mask | FontWeight800Mask | FontWeight900Mask,
Why are these stored this way if you can only have one at at time?

[eae, 2014-03-04 02:58:05]

On 2014/03/04 02:11:26, eseidel wrote:
>
https://codereview.chromium.org/183813005/diff/1/Source/platform/fonts/FontTr...
> File Source/platform/fonts/FontTraitsMask.h (right):
> 
>
https://codereview.chromium.org/183813005/diff/1/Source/platform/fonts/FontTr...
> Source/platform/fonts/FontTraitsMask.h:70: FontWeightMask = FontWeight100Mask
|
> FontWeight200Mask | FontWeight300Mask | FontWeight400Mask | FontWeight500Mask
|
> FontWeight600Mask | FontWeight700Mask | FontWeight800Mask | FontWeight900Mask,
> Why are these stored this way if you can only have one at at time?

I was wondering that myself and plan to fix that in a separate change (now that
we have tests for it).

[eae, 2014-03-04 02:58:06]

On 2014/03/04 02:11:26, eseidel wrote:
>
https://codereview.chromium.org/183813005/diff/1/Source/platform/fonts/FontTr...
> File Source/platform/fonts/FontTraitsMask.h (right):
> 
>
https://codereview.chromium.org/183813005/diff/1/Source/platform/fonts/FontTr...
> Source/platform/fonts/FontTraitsMask.h:70: FontWeightMask = FontWeight100Mask
|
> FontWeight200Mask | FontWeight300Mask | FontWeight400Mask | FontWeight500Mask
|
> FontWeight600Mask | FontWeight700Mask | FontWeight800Mask | FontWeight900Mask,
> Why are these stored this way if you can only have one at at time?

I was wondering that myself and plan to fix that in a separate change (now that
we have tests for it).

[eseidel, 2014-03-04 08:55:43]

I guess my implied question was: why are font weights stored in such a way as to
allow muliple at once.  If that's not correct, we should fix it.  if it is, then
is your change correct?

[eseidel, 2014-03-04 08:58:26]

https://codereview.chromium.org/183813005/diff/1/Source/platform/fonts/FontTr...
File Source/platform/fonts/FontTraitsMask.h (right):

https://codereview.chromium.org/183813005/diff/1/Source/platform/fonts/FontTr...
Source/platform/fonts/FontTraitsMask.h:71: FontStretchBit1Mask = 1 <<
FontStretchBit1,
Why have separate constants for these?  Why not just 0b1111 for the mask? Maybe
binary literals are GCC only?  0xF is slightly less clear, but identical too. :)

[eae, 2014-03-04 16:34:06]

On 2014/03/04 08:55:43, eseidel wrote:
> I guess my implied question was: why are font weights stored in such a way as
to
> allow muliple at once.  If that's not correct, we should fix it.  if it is,
then
> is your change correct?

The person implementing the masking likely didn't known the code well enough to
realize that only one can be used at a time. It's not like we've ever had an
owner for this code.

[eae, 2014-03-04 16:34:36]

On 2014/03/04 08:58:26, eseidel wrote:
>
https://codereview.chromium.org/183813005/diff/1/Source/platform/fonts/FontTr...
> File Source/platform/fonts/FontTraitsMask.h (right):
> 
>
https://codereview.chromium.org/183813005/diff/1/Source/platform/fonts/FontTr...
> Source/platform/fonts/FontTraitsMask.h:71: FontStretchBit1Mask = 1 <<
> FontStretchBit1,
> Why have separate constants for these?  Why not just 0b1111 for the mask?
Maybe
> binary literals are GCC only?  0xF is slightly less clear, but identical too.
:)

Sure, I'll gladly use a mask instead. Just trying to follow the existing
conventions.

[eseidel, 2014-03-04 17:57:14]

lgtm to land and then further iterate.

[eae, 2014-03-04 18:01:05]

On 2014/03/04 17:57:14, eseidel wrote:
> lgtm to land and then further iterate.

Thanks, will do!

[eae, 2014-03-04 19:54:51]

The CQ bit was checked by eae@chromium.org

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2014-03-04 19:55:02]

CQ is trying da patch. Follow status at
https://chromium-status.appspot.com/cq/eae@chromium.org/183813005/1

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2014-03-05 12:44:14]

Change committed as 168476