[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Allow scripts to be defined either as glyphs or stencils. (issue 348
From: |
v . villenave |
Subject: |
Re: Allow scripts to be defined either as glyphs or stencils. (issue 348120043 by address@hidden) |
Date: |
Fri, 22 Feb 2019 13:51:39 -0800 |
On 2019/02/22 21:00:08, dak wrote:
You are confusing stencils with stencil expressions. Stencils satisfy
ly:stencil? and you can extract their stencil expression (which
usually is a
pair) with ly:stencil-expr .
Yes, but what we’re dealing with in this function is a stencil
expression, isn’t it? (At least, as long as it isn’t unsmobbed.)
If I do
if (scm_is_pair (s) {} else *unsmob<Stencil> (s)
the stencil expression in "s" will never reach the "else" subroutine.
I don't understand where the difference in what you do with
script-stencil as a
property and what you would do with stencil as a property would lie.
Forgive me for not understanding what you mean right away. Right now,
Script.stencil is defined as ly:script-interface::print which is where
glyphs are looked up (or, with this new patch, stencil expressions),
then printed. Are you suggesting that we scrap this interface and make
Script.stencil point to a Scheme callback instead?
V⋅.
https://codereview.appspot.com/348120043/
- Allow scripts to be defined either as glyphs or stencils. (issue 348120043 by address@hidden), dak, 2019/02/22
- Re: Allow scripts to be defined either as glyphs or stencils. (issue 348120043 by address@hidden), v . villenave, 2019/02/22
- Re: Allow scripts to be defined either as glyphs or stencils. (issue 348120043 by address@hidden), dak, 2019/02/22
- Re: Allow scripts to be defined either as glyphs or stencils. (issue 348120043 by address@hidden),
v . villenave <=
- Re: Allow scripts to be defined either as glyphs or stencils. (issue 348120043 by address@hidden), dak, 2019/02/22
- Re: Allow scripts to be defined either as glyphs or stencils. (issue 348120043 by address@hidden), v . villenave, 2019/02/23
- Re: Allow scripts to be defined either as glyphs or stencils. (issue 348120043 by address@hidden), v . villenave, 2019/02/24
- Re: Allow scripts to be defined either as glyphs or stencils. (issue 348120043 by address@hidden), dak, 2019/02/24