Knut Petersen <knut_peter...@t-online.de> writes: > Hi David! > >> What a steaming heap of something. So your code would likely have >> worked in LilyPond 2.16. I think it would make sense to create a new >> type of stencil expression explicitly intended to bypass >> outlining. Probably by just containing _two_ stencils: one for >> typesetting, one for outlining. That would make for a much more >> transparent manner of programming things like that. > > There's no need for two stencils.
That's what you claim. And then you use no-outline on your stencil, and use \with-dimension in order to stack this with another stencil that has just a box outline (one that survives into both dimensions as well as outline). I still count two. > I propose to include the attached code. Which completely _drops_ any outline. So if you want a different outline, you need to combine this with some stencil that has an outline but no ink. How do you remove the ink from arbitrary stencils? You can't. So you are tied down to use this trick in connection with stencils that insist on having an outline but no ink. Really, that makes little sense. If we are going to need two stencils anyway in order to make use of dropping an outline (and the positioning for stencils with _empty_ rather than point-stencil outline is _very_ weird), we might as well let our new stencil component take two stencils. One for the inking, one for the outline (and for the resulting dimension, I would guess). -- David Kastrup _______________________________________________ lilypond-devel mailing list lilypond-devel@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
