% language=us

\startcomponent mk-breakingapart

\environment mk-environment

\chapter{Breaking apart}

[todo: mention changes to hyphenchar etc]

Because the long term objective is to have control over all aspects of the
typesetting, quite some effort went into opening up one of the cornerstones
of \TEX: breaking paragraphs into lines. And because this is closely related
to hyphenating words, this effort also meant that we had to deal with ligature
building and kerning.

This is best explained with an example. Imagine that we have the following
sentence  \footnote {The World Without Us, Alan Weisman; a quote from Richard
Thomson in  chapter: Polymers are Forever.}

\startnarrower \setupalign[nothyphenated]
We imagined it was being ground down smaller and smaller, into a kind of
powder. And we realized that smaller and smaller could lead to bigger and
bigger problems.
\stopnarrower

With the current language settings for US English this can be hyphenated
as follows:

\startnarrower
{\forgetall \hyphenatedpar{We imagined it was being ground down smaller and
smaller, into a kind of powder. And we realized that smaller and smaller
could lead to bigger and bigger problems.}}
\stopnarrower

So, when breaking a paragraph into lines, \TEX\ has a few options, but here
actually not that many. If we permits two character snippets, we can get:

\startnarrower \lefthyphenmin=2 \righthyphenmin=2
{\forgetall \hyphenatedpar{We imagined it was being ground down smaller and
smaller, into a kind of powder. And we realized that smaller and smaller
could lead to bigger and bigger problems.}}
\stopnarrower

If we revert to UK English, we get:

\startnarrower
{\forgetall \uk \hyphenatedpar{We imagined it was being ground down smaller and
smaller, into a kind of powder. And we realized that smaller and smaller
could lead to bigger and bigger problems.}}
\stopnarrower

or, more tolerant,

\startnarrower \lefthyphenmin=2 \righthyphenmin=2
{\forgetall \uk \hyphenatedpar{We imagined it was being ground down smaller and
smaller, into a kind of powder. And we realized that smaller and smaller
could lead to bigger and bigger problems.}}
\stopnarrower

or with Dutch patterns:

\startnarrower
{\forgetall \nl \hyphenatedpar{We imagined it was being ground down smaller and
smaller, into a kind of powder. And we realized that smaller and smaller
could lead to bigger and bigger problems.}}
\stopnarrower

The code in traditional \TEX\ that deals with hyphenation and linebreaks is rather
interwoven. There is a relationship between the font encoding and the way patterns
are encodes. A few years after \TEX\ was written, support for multiple languages was
added, which resulted in a mix of (kind of global) language settings (no nodes) and
language nodes in the node lists. Traditionally it roughly works as follows:

\startitemize

\item The input \type {We imagined it} is tokenized and turned into glyph nodes. If
non \ASCII\ characters are used (like pre composed accented characters) there may be
a translation step: macros or active characters can insert \type {\char} commands or
map onto other characters, for instance input byte 123 can become byte 198 which in
turn ends up as a reference in a glyph node to a font slot. Whatever method is used to
go from input to glyph node, eventually we have a reference to a position in a font.
Unfortunately we had only 256 such slots per font.

\item When it's time to break a paragraph into lines, traditional \TEX\ walks over
the list, reconstruct words and inserts hyphenation points. In the process,
inter|-|character kerns that are already injected need to be removed and reinserted,
and ligatures have to be decomposed and recomposed. The magic of hyphenation is
controlled by discretionary nodes. These specify what to do when a word is hyphenated.
Take for instance the Dutch word \type {effe} which hyphenated becomes \type {ef-fe}
so the \type {ff} either stays, or is split into \type {f-} and \type {f}.

\item Because a glyph node is bound to a font, there is a relationship with the
font encoding. Because there is no one 8-bit encoding that suits all languages, we
may end up with several instances of a font in one document (used for different
languages) and each when we switch language and|/|or font, we also have to enable
a suitable set of patterns (in a matching encoding).

\stopitemize

You can imagine that this may lead to moderately complex mechanisms in macro packages.
For instance, in \CONTEXT, to each language multiple font encodings can be bound and
a switch of fonts (with related encoding) also results in a switch to a suitable set
of patterns. But in \MKIV\ things are done different.

First of all, we got rid of font encodings by exclusively using \UNICODE. We already
were using \UTF\ encoded patterns (so that we could load them under different font
encodings) so less patterns had to be loaded per language. That happened even before
the \LUATEX\ development arrived at hyphenation.

Before that effort started, Taco and I already played a bit with alternative
hyphenation methods. For instance, we took large word lists with hyphenation points
inserted. Taco wrote a loader (\LUA\ could not handle the large tables as function
return value) and I made some hyphenation code in \LUA. Surprisingly we found out that
it was pretty efficient, although we didn't  have the weighted hyphenation points
that patterns may provide. Basically we simulated the \type {\hyphenation} command.

While we went back to fonts, Taco's college Nanning wrote the first version of a new
hyphenation storage mechanism, so when about half a year later we were ready to deal with the
linebreak mechanisms, one of the key components was more or less ready. Where fonts forced me to
write quite some \LUA\ code (still not finished), the new hyphenation
mechanisms could be supported rather easy, if only because the framework was already
kind of present (written during the experiments). Even better, when splitting the old
code into \MKII\ and new \MKIV\ code, I could do most housekeeping in \LUA, and only
needed a minimal amount of \TEX\ interfacing (partly redundant because of the shared
interface). The new mechanism also was no longer bound to the format, which means
that we could postpone loading of the patterns to runtime. Instead of the still
supported traditional loading of patterns and exceptions, we load them under \LUA\
control. This gave me yet another nice excercise in using \type {lpeg} (\LUA's string
parser).

With a new pattern loader in place, Taco started separating the hyphenation, ligature
building and kerning. Each stage now has its own callback and each stage has an
associated \LUA\ function, so that one can create a different order of execution or
integrate it in other node parsing activities, most noticeably the handling of
\OPENTYPE\ features.

When I was trying to integrate this into the already existing node processing sequences,
some nasty tricks were needed in order to feed the hyphenation function. At that
moment it was still partly modelled after the traditional \TEX\ way, which boiled down
to the following. As soon as the hyphenation function is invoked, it needs to know what
the current language is. This information is not stored in the node list, only mid
paragraph language switched are stored. Due to the fact that much information in \TEX\
is global (well, in \LUATEX\ less and less) this complicates matters. Because in \MKIV\
hyphenation, ligature building and kerning are done differently (dus to \OPENTYPE) we
used the hyphenation callback to collect the language parameters so that we could use
them when we called the hyphenation function later. This can definetely be qualified as
an ugly hack.

Before we discuss how this was solved, we summarize the state of affairs. In \LUATEX\
we now have a sequence of callbacks related to paragraph building and in between not
much happens any more.

\startitemize[packed]
\item hyphenation
\item ligaturing
\item kerning
\item preparing linebreaking
\item linebreaking
\item finishing linebreaking
\stopitemize

Before we only had:

\startitemize[packed]
\item preparing linebreaking
\stopitemize

and this is where \MKIV\ hooks in ist code. The first three are disabled by
associating them with dummy functions. I'm still not sure how the last two will
fit it, especially because there is some interplay between \OPENTYPE\ features
and linebreaking, like alternative glyphs at the end of the line. Because the
\HZ\ and protruding mechanisms also will be supported we may as well end up with
a mechanism for alternative glyphs built into the linebreak algorithm.

Back to the current situation. What made matters even more complicated was the
fact that we need to manipulate node lists while building horizontal material
(hpacking) as well as for paragraphs (pre|-|linebreaking). Compare the following
two situations. In the first case the hbox is packaged and hyphenation is not
needed.

\starttyping
text \hbox {text} text
\stoptyping

However, when we unbox the content, hyphenation needs to be applied.

\starttyping
\setbox0=\hbox{text} text \unhbox0\ text
\stoptyping

[I need to check the next]

Traditional \TEX\ does not look at all potential hyphenation points, but only around
places that have a high probability as line|-|end. \LUATEX\ just hyphenates the whole
list, although the function can be used selectively over a range, in \MKIV\ we see no
reason for this and hyphenate whole lists.

The new hyphenation routine not only operates on the whole list, but also can be made
transparent for uppercase characters. Because we assume \UNICODE\ lowercase codes are
no longer stored with the patterns (an \ETEX\ extension). The usual left- and
righthyphenmin control is still there. The first word of a paragraph is no longer
ignored in the process.

Because the stages are separated now, the opportunity was there to separate between
characters and glyphs. As with traditional \TEX, only characters are taken into
account when hyphenating, so how do we distinguish between the two? The subtype (a
property of each node) already registered if we were dealing with a ligature or not.
Taco and Nanning had decided to treat the subtype as a bitset and after a bit of
testing ans skyping we came to the conclusion that we needed an easy way to tag a
glyph node as being \quote {already processed}. Keep in mind that as in the unhboxed
example, the unhboxed content is already treated (hpack callback). If you wonder why
we have these two moments of treatment think of this: if you put something in a box
and want to know its dimensions, all font related features need to be applied. If the
box is inserted as is, it can be recognized (a hlist or vlist node) and safely skipped
in the prelinebreak handling. However, when it is unhboxed, we want to avoid
reprocessing. Normally reprocessing will be prevented because the glyph nodes are
mixed with kerns and ligatures are already built, but we can best play safe.
Once we're done with processing a list (which can involve many passes, depending on
what treatment is needed) we can tag the glyphs nodes as \quote {done} by adding 256
to the subtype. We can then test on this property in callbacks while at the same time
built-in functions like those responsible for hyphenation ignore this high bit.

The transition from character to glyph is also done by changing bits in the subtype.
At some point we need to set the subtype so that it reflects the node being a glyph,
ligature or other special type (there are a few more types inherited from omega). I
know that this all sounds complicated, but in \MKIV\ we now roughly do the following
(of course this may and probably will change):

\startitemize[packed]
\item attribute driven manipulations (for instance case change)
\item language driven manipulations (spell checking, hyphenation)
\item font driven treatments, mostly features (ligature building, kerning)
\item turn characters into glyphs (so that they will not be hyphenated again)
\item normal ligaturing routine (currently still needed for not open type fonts, may
      become obsolete)
\item normal kerning routine (currently still needed for not open type fonts, may
      become obsolete)
\item attribute driven manipulations (special spacing and kerning)
\stopitemize

When no callbacks are used, turning characters into glyphs happens automatically behind
the screens. When using callbacks (as in \MKIV) this needs to be done explicitly
(but there is a helper function for this).

So, by now \LUATEX\ can determine which glyph nodes play a role in hyphenation but still
we have this \quote {what language are we in} problem. As usual in the development of
\LUATEX, these fundamental changes took place in a setting where Taco and I are in a
persistent state of Skyping, and it did not take much time to decide that in order to
make the callbacks usable, it made much sense to moving the language related information
to the glyph node as well, i.e.\ the number of the language object (patterns and
exceptions), the left and right min values, and the boolean that tells how to treat
uppercase characters. Each is now accessible in the usual way (by key). The penalty in
additional memory is zero because it's stored along with the subtype bitset. By going this
route, the ugly hack mentioned before could be removed as well.

In the process of finalizing the code, discretionary nodes got a slightly different
implementation. Originally they were organized as follows (ff is a ligature):

\starttyping
con-text == [c][o](pre=n-,post=,replace=1)[n][t][e][x][t]
effe     == [e](pre=f-,post=f,replace=1)[ff][e]
\stoptyping

So, a discretionaty node contained information about what to put at the end of the broken
line and what to put in front of the next line, as well as the number of following nodes
in the list to skip when such a linebreak occured. Because this leads to rather messy code
especially when ligatures are involved, so the decision was made to change the replacement
counter into a node list holding those (optionally) to be replaced nodes.

\starttyping
con-text == [c][o](pre=n-,post=,replace=n)[t][e][x][t]
effe     == [e](pre=f-,post=f,replace=ff)[e]
\stoptyping

This is much cleaner, but a consequence of this change was that all \MKIV\ node manipulation
code written so far had to be reviewed.

Of course we need to spend a few words on performance. We keep doing performance tests
but currently we only remove bottlenecks that bother us. Later in the development
optimization will tke place in the code. One reason is that the code changes, another
reason is that large portions of \PASCAL\ code is turned  into \CCODE. Because
integrating these changes (apart from preparations) took place within  a few weeks, we
could reasonably well compare the old and the new hyphenation mechanisms using our
(evolving) manuals and surprisingly the performance was certainly not worse than before.

\stopcomponent

