>> . First of all, `make-XXX-stencil' seems to be completely
>> undocumented. At least I can't find those functions in the
>> reference (except some unsystematic usage here and there).
>
> I'm not sure who made them or when they made it into LilyPond, but
> you're certainly welcome to post a patch documenting them - I think
> it'd be helpful to have that documented.
Indeed. However, those functions already have documentation attached
to it (which could be certainly extended where necessary) in the
source code, so I wonder whether it is possible to extract them
mechanically, as is already done for other Scheme files.
>> . I would expect that both `make-circle-stencil' and
>> `make-filled-box-stencil' produce something which has a natural
>> height.
>
> They do. It's just that LilyPond doesn't know that they will
> because they're functions. Whenever LilyPond doesn't know if a
> function will return a natural height, she assumes it won't. [...]
> LilyPond will simply ignore the function all together because there
> is no guarantee that it is pure [...]. This is why it needs to be
> wrapped in an unpure-pure container.
Aah. This is the missing link. For me it would be fully sufficient
if you add the above to the documentation.
> I'll revisit the CG and find a way to better explain this.
Thanks!
Werner
_______________________________________________
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
