[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Some code for polygons
From: |
David Feuer |
Subject: |
Re: Some code for polygons |
Date: |
Wed, 12 Apr 2006 15:02:36 -0400 |
On 4/12/06, Jan Nieuwenhuizen <address@hidden> wrote:
> Indeed; no need for an assert. But in that case ... found it
>
> define-markup-command.scm:
> (define-markup-command (triangle layout props filled) (boolean?)
> "A triangle, filled or not"
>
> we use it to draw `white' triangles for chords...
Yuck. This makes a great argument for my proposal to get the
arbitrary Scheme code out of stencils (so there's only -one- place in
the source that produces output code). The easiest way to keep this
working the same as it does now is to name my new functions
filled-polygon and retain the old (really simple) polygon drawers in
the backends. The polygon procedure in lookup.cc can still go away.
I'm a bit curious, though, why the triangles are done that way, which
lets the blot exceed the normal bounds. If that behavior is a bug,
then something else will need to be done. One option might be to make
triangle-shrinking code, which would be a bit icky, but not as icky as
general polygon-shrinking code, because triangles have some pretty
nice geometric properties. I have another couple ideas, but I'm still
working those out.
David
- Some code for polygons, David Feuer, 2006/04/10
- Re: Some code for polygons, Jan Nieuwenhuizen, 2006/04/11
- Re: Some code for polygons, Jan Nieuwenhuizen, 2006/04/12
- Message not available
- Re: Some code for polygons, Jan Nieuwenhuizen, 2006/04/12
- Re: Some code for polygons, David Feuer, 2006/04/12
- Re: Some code for polygons, Jan Nieuwenhuizen, 2006/04/12
- Re: Some code for polygons,
David Feuer <=
- Re: Some code for polygons, Juergen Reuter, 2006/04/12
- Re: Some code for polygons, Jan Nieuwenhuizen, 2006/04/12
- Re: Some code for polygons, David Feuer, 2006/04/12