Carl Sorensen-3 wrote > Cool idea! Thanks!
>>- allow "unconnected" paths with multiple segments. (i.e. allow (r)moveto >>in the middle of the path expression) > > Seems to allow simplification of complex stencils. Indeed, it lets you put things where you want them in the first place, both in relation to each other and to (0 0), while working in a single coordinate plane. This provides fewer moving parts to figure out and less ambiguity about the output. For example, currently you would have to define separate stencils that both start at (0 0) and then combine them into a single stencil while spacing them just right in relation to each other, etc. It would make that kind of thing a lot simpler. >>- allow use of different "cap" and "join" styles, not just round. > > It's part of the LilyPond engraving aesthetic to use round caps and joins. > Engraving on metal plates doesn't have sharp corners. That's why we > don't have the other styles. If you look at all of our box stencils, > you'll see they have rounded corners. So I don't think we should support > other cap and join styles. But I could certainly be overruled here. Hmmm... ok, although these are just optional arguments that default to round caps and joins, so I don't see the harm in making it possible to use the other styles, even if the practice is not to use them in LilyPond. My approach was to make it possible to do anything with this function that you can do with ly:make-stencil and a path expression. > Does it also work with output-ps.scm? I think so. It works the same as make-connected-path-stencil as far as that goes. > It seems like we would replace make-connected-path-stencil with > make-path-stencil. It can do everything that make-connected-path-stencil does, so that would be possible. > I haven't tried to rewrite your code, but when I first learned Scheme I > was told that anytime you saw lots of set! expressions in the code, you > were trying to write procedural code (I.e. c) instead of functional code > (Scheme). Your code seems to have lots of set! expressions; it may be > possible to rewrite it in a more functional manner. That's a helpful tip, thanks! > Anyway, this is a nice contribution! Thanks again, -Paul -- View this message in context: http://lilypond.1069038.n5.nabble.com/New-make-path-stencil-function-tp153077p153111.html Sent from the User mailing list archive at Nabble.com. _______________________________________________ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
