Rietveld Code Review Tool
Help | Bug tracker | Discussion group | Source code | Sign in
(552)

Issue 6294086: get rid of minimum-[XY]-extents

Can't Edit
Can't Publish+Mail
Start Review
Created:
11 years, 9 months ago by janek
Modified:
11 years, 9 months ago
Reviewers:
Keith, david.nalesnik
CC:
lilypond-devel_gnu.org
Base URL:
http://git.savannah.gnu.org/gitweb/?p=lilypond.git/trunk/
Visibility:
Public.

Description

get rid of minimum-[XY]-extents they were used long ago for vertical spacing, now they are deprecated. Their only use was with DynamicTextSpanner, but it was more of an ugly hack than a real solution.

Patch Set 1 #

Total comments: 5

Patch Set 2 : correct XYoffset docstring #

Unified diffs Side-by-side diffs Delta from patch set Stats (+10 lines, -26 lines) Patch
M lily/grob.cc View 3 chunks +0 lines, -18 lines 0 comments Download
M python/convertrules.py View 1 chunk +6 lines, -0 lines 0 comments Download
M scm/define-grob-properties.scm View 1 3 chunks +4 lines, -6 lines 0 comments Download
M scm/define-grobs.scm View 1 chunk +0 lines, -2 lines 0 comments Download

Messages

Total messages: 3
Keith
Nobody told me minimum-*-extents were deprecated, except for their use in staff-spacing, so I have ...
11 years, 9 months ago (2012-06-19 08:53:44 UTC) #1
janek
Hi Keith, David (i'd like to know your opinion about something here) and all, On ...
11 years, 9 months ago (2012-06-19 10:37:28 UTC) #2
david.nalesnik
11 years, 9 months ago (2012-06-19 21:38:38 UTC) #3
On 2012/06/19 10:37:28, janek wrote:
> Hi Keith,
> David (i'd like to know your opinion about something here)
> and all,

> > The minimum-*-extent is convenient when you want extra
> > space on one side, and don't want to think about what
> > extent the object should have on the other side.
> 
> Indeed they can be handy in situations like that.
> However, i think that we should approach this problem differently,
> in a more flexible and less hard-coded way.
> 
> Here's the downside of minimum-*-extent solution: what if i need to
> specify extent's upper bound instead of lower one?  There's no
> "maximum-[XY]-extent" property.  What if i want to restrict [XY]-offset?
> Again, [minimum|maximum]-[XY]-offset properties don't exist.
> So, should we create them for all similar properties?
> Surely not, that would be a hell lot of boilerplate code!
> 
> I think that we should use scheme functions for things like that.
> I'm pretty sure that one can easily write a scheme function
> which would set [XY]-extent to at least something.
> Or a funtion that would modify only one element in a pair.
> David, could you confirm that it's possible to easily define
> such funtions?

It's no problem to create higher-order functions, and you can easily manipulate
the elements of pairs and lists in any number of ways.  What I can't visualize
here is how a procedure which, say, limits the elements of a pair to a maximum,
should be called (if not as a music function, as I did in the offsetting
function you mention below).

> Keith, for an illustration of such "modifying functions" see this
> email from David Nalesnik:
> http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/lilypond-devel/2012-06/msg00102.html
>
Sign in to reply to this message.

Powered by Google App Engine
RSS Feeds Recent Issues | This issue
This is Rietveld f62528b