Carl Sorensen <c_soren...@byu.edu> writes: > David Kastrup <d...@gnu.org> writes: >> > >> >> So my fear is that the new scheme is both strictly logical, and not >> useful for specifying a coherent document layout. > > But the new scheme is just a restatement (renaming) of the current > scheme.
The renaming moves from a document design perspective (high level) to an implementation one (low level). The use of those variables, however, is inside of the layout block which is supposed to be a document design specification. It also moves from an essentially one-dimensional parameter realm "above-x, between-x, below-x, above-y, between-y, below-y" to a two-dimensional matrix "between-x-x, between-x-y" ... This does not make it feasible to introduce further layout components for spacing since the parameter growth becomes quadratic. > Mark is not trying to *redo* the document layout algorithms; he's > trying to *rename* the document layout properties. > > It appears that this effort has been helpful in at least two ways: (1) > it is strictly logical, and (2) it has helped to identify some of the > limitations of the document layout algorithms. > > Perhaps in the future these limitations can be resolved. If the naming scheme is tightly coupled with the limitations, any resolution and/or improvement would require a complete overhaul of existing layout specifications. So I don't see this change of the naming scheme as a change that encourages further work on layout specification improvement. -- David Kastrup _______________________________________________ lilypond-devel mailing list lilypond-devel@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
