On 4/6/06, Han-Wen Nienhuys <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > They participate, in that their dimension fields are used for various > computations. Simply said, a stencil is a combination of output format > and a bbox.
Once a stencil is constructed, is it ever adjusted? That is, once the stencil is made, does Lilypond ever go back in and shift the contents around, or is it treated as a single unit from then on? > > 2. The more I read the code and think about it, the more I think > > stencil interpretation should be pushed to the back end and written in > > Scheme. > > what exactly do you want to push back? The way I understand it, Lilypond constructs a stencil to represent an object, and the largest stencils (lines? pages?) are then interpreted to produce output. I suggest that the back ends should get the stencils themselves. > > 3. I really don't like stencil leaves being arbitrary scheme > > expressions that produce output. When the back end can't look inside > > the box, it can't figure out the best way to deal with the contents. > > Perhaps, but it was an easy solution for what we needed: a way of > having pluggable backends with minimum fuss. When I changed the gsave/grestore stuff in the PostScript backend, I was (and still am) nervous because the backend doesn't have a clue what might be in the code fragments passed into boxes. David _______________________________________________ lilypond-devel mailing list [email protected] http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
