Abdelrazak Younes wrote: > Alfredo Braunstein wrote: >> Abdelrazak Younes wrote: >>> I think there is a misundertanding here... I agree that the baseline is >>> the reference and I did not change that philosophy I think. For me the >>> baseline is the baseline of the inset, not the baseline of the inner >>> Text. The fact that InsetCollapsable adjust its baseline to its inner >>> Text is just a special case. >> >> Not so special (pretty much every Text related Inset) but yes. > > Well, tabular is another special case but that's what I meant yes. > >> >>> Now, that's my turn to be unsure of the clarity of what I'm saying... >> >> I'm not sure either... So you don't plan to switch every InsetX::draw >> function to accept top_y, just TextMetrics::draw? > > No, I didn't even do that for InsetCollopsable, please note that the > code at the top of the draw() method now is: > > int const top = y - tm.ascent(); > > So, this _is_ the text baseline. The only effect of my change is that I > factorized the substraction of the text ascent. Probably we should > rename top to baseline. Now I understand where you got confused...
Sorry I can't follow you. Maybe I'm just tired today. ;-) What I read from the code is: Insetcollapsable::draw(x, y) (and other insets): y is the baseline of the InsetCollapsable (that happends to be the same baseline of the InsetText, at least in inlined situation) [-- I don't get why you would substract the ascent in the non-inlined situation] y - tm.ascent() is the top of the Text, not a baseline - InsetText::draw(x, y): the y refers to the top of the *Text* (horrible, not even top of the InsetText) - TextMetrics::draw(x, y): the y refers to the top of the Text It seems pretty much a mess to me. A/
