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.

Take a look at the proposed

Tracker issue: 5043 (https://sourceforge.net/p/testlilyissues/issues/5043/)
Rietveld issue: 319170043 (https://codereview.appspot.com/319170043)
Issue description:
  Define markup command \with-outline   Also contains commits:  Use ly
  :stencil-outline instead of transparent-stencil   Implement ly
  :stencil-outline separating ink/metrics

You'll find that your proposed no-outline can be done as

(ly:stencil-outline stencil empty-stencil)

Which probably is more prone to strange positioning (as it does not make
any space at all and I am not sure that it will always properly
translate to a reasonably correct position) than is

(ly:stencil-outline stencil point-stencil)

which will ask for padding.  So you have the option to experiment,
easily.

-- 
David Kastrup