On 2013/08/26 05:25:42, mike7 wrote:
On 26 août 2013, at 08:20, mailto:d...@gnu.org wrote:
> Indeed. Instead of calling stencil-integrate on a "surrogate
stencil"
> or whatever for deriving a skyline, the respective stencil operation
in
> stencil-integrate will just plug in a a "surrogate skyline" directly > specified in the stencil operation and be done. > > Which is less work.
What is more work is what I talk about farther down in my previous e-mail.
So why do you talk about that in the first place?
It is possible to create a stencil primitive that works something
like:
`(replacement-skylines ,left ,right, ,up ,down original-stencil)
but that seems kludgy.
Less kludgy than the code we are currently reviewing, and that's what the current issue is.
It would be better and more consistent with currently practices in the code base if stencils carried their own skyline information (as they do their own dimensions), which would require a lot of juggling code around.
In the context of reviewing this patch, this is a straw man argument. https://codereview.appspot.com/12957047/ _______________________________________________ lilypond-devel mailing list lilypond-devel@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel