Re: [PATCH] no-outline-stencil backend property

[David Kastrup]

Knut Petersen <address@hidden> writes:

> Am 24.01.2017 um 14:49 schrieb David Kastrup:
>>
>>>> What a steaming heap of something. So your code would likely have
>>>> worked in LilyPond 2.16. I think it would make sense to create a new
>>>> type of stencil expression explicitly intended to bypass
>>>> outlining. Probably by just containing _two_ stencils: one for
>>>> typesetting, one for outlining. That would make for a much more
>>>> transparent manner of programming things like that.
>>> There's no need for two stencils.
>> That's what you claim.  And then you use no-outline on your stencil,
> yes, here only expr_ is extended, it's still one stencil
>> and
>> use \with-dimension in order to stack this with another stencil that has
>> just a box outline (one that survives into both dimensions as well as
>> outline).  I still count two.
> Why should I use with-dimension? The original stencil and its dimensions
> are unchanged and will be used in the stencil interpreter. no-outline() hides
> the dimensions from the code in stencil-integral.cc, but they are still 
> present
> and the stencil interpreter uses them.
>
>>> I propose to include the attached code.
>> Which completely _drops_ any outline.  So if you want a different
>> outline, you need to combine this with some stencil that has an outline
>> but no ink.  How do you remove the ink from arbitrary stencils?  You
>> can't.  So you are tied down to use this trick in connection with
>> stencils that insist on having an outline but no ink.
>
> David, this is NO-outline code. It' not a fake-some-arbitrary-outline-stencil.
>
> The code is useful for e.g. whiteout, watermarks etc. Define a stencil as 
> usual,
> color it, scale it, whatever else. Just mark a stencil x with x.no_outline();
>
> The result is:
>         -> the outline is completely ignored in stencil_traverser(),
> so no collisions are detected.
>         -> the stencil is drawn in interpret_stencil_expression() as
> it would be drawn without the no_outline layer.

Sort of complementary to transparent-stencil (which is
outline/dimension-only, no ink).

I think I'd prefer to cast both in terms of the same primitive.

-- 
David Kastrup