Thank you very much for this Hans. And especially for resolving
what looks like quite a complex issue in next to no time.

As it happens I've found LMTX just fine for "production", so long as
I keep copies of a few versions that I know are working well.

I settled on SciTE a long time ago and tend to keep a few start
up scripts that make reverting to a previous version simple:

-r-x------ 1 rbm49 rbm49 210 Dec 20 16:54 SciTE-start-lmtx-20200920.sh
-r-x------ 1 rbm49 rbm49 210 Jun 13 22:04 SciTE-start-lmtx-20210509.sh
-rwx------ 1 rbm49 rbm49 210 Jun 15 08:50 SciTE-start-lmtx-latest.sh

#!/bin/bash
# 
#  SciTE-start-lmtx-20200920.sh
PATH="${HOME}/lmtx-20200920/tex/texmf-linux-64/bin:${HOME}/lmtx-
20200920/bin:${HOME}/bin:${HOME}/.local/bin:/opt/VirtualBox:${PATH}"
cd /home/rbm49 &&
exec /usr/local/bin/SciTE && exit 0
exit 2 


But really, taking things back a version or two isn't needed all that
often
as issues tend to be sorted out quite quickly with all the testing
that people
are doing -- so thanks for that too. :)


Best, Richard



-- 
T +6433121699  M +64210640216  E rmahoney@indica-et-buddhica.org
IM https://t.me/rmahoney  W https://indica-et-buddhica.org/

Indica et Buddhica  Littledene  Bay Road  Oxford  NZ

-----Original Message-----
From: Hans Hagen <j.hagen@xs4all.nl>
Reply-To: mailing list for ConTeXt users <ntg-context@ntg.nl>
To: Richard Mahoney <rmahoney@indica-et-buddhica.org>, mailing list
for ConTeXt users <ntg-context@ntg.nl>
Subject: Re: [NTG-context] [#1] CJK regression? | lmtx-20210613 &c.
Date: Mon, 14 Jun 2021 17:28:06 +0200
Mailer: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:78.0)
Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/78.11.0
X-Spam-Score: 0.0

On 6/13/2021 10:54 PM, Hans Hagen wrote:
> On 6/13/2021 9:42 PM, Richard Mahoney wrote:
> > I'm wondering if there has been a regression in the rendering of
> > CJK recently? I'm attaching two screenshots from the same code:
> > one with lmtx-20210509 (correct); and the other lmtx-20210613
> > (incomplete).
> no, it's a side effect of something else (which shows up with these 
> extremeely large fonts > 65k glyphs) .. i'll look into it tomorrow
I uploaded a new lmtx ... kind of experimental because I changes some
of 
the background bist that deals with embedding. The problem is that we 
need to deal with the previously reported clash between different 
unicode entries that share shapes (normally no issue but in this case
it 
was a side effect of 'effective' monospaces where the font decided
that 
invisible shapes should he visual anyway) as well as with the fact
that 
soem cjk fonts have many duplicates which makes us cross the 65
boundary.

The variant approach is ok but I might have overlooked some soecial 
cases. Because this also drops 'stream compatibility' between mkiv and
lmtx (which had already become somewhat loose) I can now also clean up
(simplify) some other parts of the font system but let's do that 
stepwise (I'm in no hurry here).

Hans


-----------------------------------------------------------------
                                           Hans Hagen | PRAGMA ADE
               Ridderstraat 27 | 8061 GH Hasselt | The Netherlands
        tel: 038 477 53 69 | www.pragma-ade.nl | www.pragma-pod.nl
-----------------------------------------------------------------