On 28 août 2013, at 09:47, "Keith OHara" <k-ohara5...@oco.net> wrote:
> On Tue, 27 Aug 2013 23:30:32 -0700, Mike Solomon <m...@mikesolomon.org> wrote:
>
>> On 28 août 2013, at 05:28, "Keith OHara" <k-ohara5...@oco.net> wrote:
>>
>>> Of course I think it would be better to allow box dimensions in the stencil
>>> expression. Boxes are simple enough to enter as coordinates in markup
>>> expressions like \pad-to-box, they are a useful building block for
>>> arbitrary skylines, and the current code builds skylines from the stencil
>>> expression.
>>>
>>
>> If we are willing to say that boxes should be an exception because of how
>> primitive they are, then it makes more sense to make an exception for them,
>> as they can be used in concord to create more complex structures. In that
>> case, we may want to accept a list of boxes (or a list of quadrilaterals)
>> instead of just a box, as at that point we can approximate any shape.
>>
>
> Another reason for making an exception for boxes is the preexistence of
> \pad-to-box as a markup command, while we now base our padding on skylines
> derived from the stencil expressions.
>
> If we still think this way in a day, I'll repost the patch that adds the
> stencil-primitive 'with-dimensions, supports {cresc. \pad-around 0.5 "- -
> -"}, and removes the faint box around harp-pedals.
>
> A stencil-primitive 'with-dimension could be extended in a natural way to a
> list of boxes, if we want that in the future.
>
Just for kicks, I've proposed a new patch along with a new issue 3255. It's
worth mulling over - whatever solution we implement should fix this issue as
well.
Cheers,
MS
_______________________________________________
lilypond-devel mailing list
lilypond-devel@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
