Citat Juergen Reuter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > > You can also simulate the effect that you want, by > > using a negative padding (of - blot/2) when combining the molecules. > > This is actually an argument on my side: You can simulate the effect > that > you want with my rounded box by reducing the dimensions by -blot/2.
Well, first of all the dimensions (size) should be reduced by blot, not just by blot/2. Ofcourse this is done by moving the edges of the box blot/2 in opposite directions, alright. Well, but this (your) approach does not handle situations where the dimensions are less than blot-diameter in which case your routine would be called with a negative size-argument - and hopefully nobody expects that the routine should cope in a reasonable way with that. I consider it easier to take special care of small values in the box-drawing routine (i.e. by reducing blot-diameter) - and hence I (still) prefer the "old" (exclusive) way of blotting. > This > is in so far an advantage, as the user of rounded box is responsible > for > proper handling of the dimensions rather than the drawing routine > internally doing some magic max/min calculations which, I think, are > necessary if the box width or length is below blotdiameter. We agree that your approach leaves the special cases to the user while HanWen's approach leave them to the boxing-routine. We don't agree which is the best... I just think that leaving it to the user results in the same min-max-code being copy-pasted all over the source rather than leaving it in the same place (the box-routine). -Rune _______________________________________________ Lilypond-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
