2018-09-16 19:36 GMT+02:00 Lukas-Fabian Moser <[email protected]>: > Hi Harm, > > thanks much for the ideas and pointers to old discussions! > >> So my first suggestion would be to drop the boolean argument for >> 'whiteout. >> Instead let the user decide. Providing a number shouldn't be too hard. >> Dropping the boolean was already disussed here: >> https://codereview.appspot.com/236480043/#msg15 >> Though, I don't see much arguments. otoh it's not unlikely I don't >> understand the argument(s) ;) >> A disadvantage would be the neeed to code some convert-rule (which is >> beyond my coding-capabilities). > > > I didn't do this because I didn't want to break existing scores. To me, > removing the boolean variant which provides default values seems like > killing a feature and not gaining much for it.
Well, why different defaults for default-box and rounded-box? I see no point in it. > Your statement sounds as if > you dislike the clumsyness of "boolean or number or even something else"? Indeed ;) And I don't like a `thickness`-variable (in stencil-whiteout-box/outline) may get the value #t. Ok, this may be solvable by renaming thickness to whiteout-padding or the like. >> >> Quite often users (including myself) want to customize the >> whiteout-amount even more than currently possible. >> So my second suggestion is to make whiteout accepting a number-or-pair. >> A number would do what's already done with it. >> A simple pair like '(1 . 2) would extent the whiteout-amount for >> x-y-axis differently. > > > This is exactly what I implemented (tried to implement). Yep. >> >> A pair-list like '((1 . 2)(3 . 4)) would extent the whiteout-amount in >> x-axis with the values of the first pair, in y-axis with the values of >> the second pair. > > > Good idea! But wouldn't it be cleaner to use a pair of pairs instead of a > list of pairs? Here I'm with David in his other post. Even '((1 . 2) . (3 . 4)) is not nicely readable, imho. >> >> Providing a pair or a pair-list will not work for 'outline ofcourse, I >> don't have a good thought how to deal with this style, though. >> Probably printing a message and/or providing some default, which may >> be zero. > > > This already opened a discussion which, I think, goes in an orthogonal > direction - it already showed that 'outline whiteouts are a quinte different > beast from boxes. If we change whiteout to accept a pair, we should think about what stencil-whiteout-outline should do with it, though. > @Kieren et al.: Is there really a use-case for 'outline whiteout with > changing thickness dependent on the angle? (But of course I agree that there > are cases where even the 'outline technique we have now produces > less-than-optimal results, as can already be seen in the discussions Harm > pointed us to.) Speaking only for myself, I never used whiteout-outline in music-scores, there are always flaws... It's more important for markup, thus the example using markup in my previous post. See also: http://lsr.di.unimi.it/LSR/Item?id=1016 Cheers, Harm _______________________________________________ lilypond-devel mailing list [email protected] https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
