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. Your statement sounds as if you dislike the clumsyness of "boolean or number or even something else"? > 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). > 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? > 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. @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.) Best Lukas _______________________________________________ lilypond-devel mailing list lilypond-devel@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
