Alfredo Braunstein wrote:
> Angus Leeming wrote:
>
>> Cute, but doesn't scale well if you have multiple insets on one line.
>
> True.
>
>>> Otherwise (snapshot7) ,
>>
>> Yes please!
>
> There are still a number of problems, mainly due to the fact that the
> inset doesn't have his own row but just vertically enlarges the row it's
> in: 1) it uses vertical space of letters before it: normally this space is
> not used, but huge-sized 'q's get overlapped by the inset. Not very common
> but...
But it is common for inlined insets right now.
blah [inset]+---------+ blah blah [inset]
| aaaaaaa | - - - -------+
| bbbbbbb | |
+---------+ - - - -------+
if the second inset gets out of line, it will overlap with the first one. A
solution would be to pass in metrics also the descent of the row up to now
(this would be needed for the three boxes thingy anyway I think). So we
will end up with something like:
blah [inset]+---------+ blah blah [inset]
| aaaaaaa | | |
| bbbbbbb | | |
+---------+ | |
+---------------------------------+ +---+
| |
+-------------------------------------------+
But it's really getting too weird. I think I'm going to drop the whole idea.
> 2) row-driven cursor up and down get confused by it.
This is something we will have with 3B (3 boxes) also.
> I'm still evaluating pros and cons.
I'm shifting to the cons now :-)
Alfredo
