Re: Problems with Internals manual

[Aaron Hill]

On 2020-06-17 5:53 am, David Kastrup wrote:
> Aaron Hill <lilypond@hillvisions.com> writes:
>
> > On 2020-06-17 1:35 am, Peter Toye wrote:
> > > Robin,
> > > Thanks. Fair enough. I guessed and experimented and got the result
> > > that I wanted. But I'm not quite sure how I managed it!
> > > A problem I had with minimum-X-extent is that it's a pair, but the
> > > description describes it as a distance, which I'd have thought was a
> > > single number!
> >
> > Hmm.
> >
> > ====
> > minimum-X-extent (pair of numbers)
> >   Minimum size of an object in X dimension, measured in staff-space
> >   units.
> > ====
> >
> > I see no mention of "distance", but "size" might often be thought of
> > as a singular value.  In reality, extents are closer to "bounds" than
> > "size".  While the docs are pretty clear about the value being a pair
> > of numbers, perhaps we should update the extent-related properties to
> > use "bounds" as opposed to "size".
>
> Minimum bounds?  Frankly, the description is rather useless.  Without
> looking up the actual code, I would have no idea what the two numbers
> here are supposed to signify, respectively.

Given the variable name and description, I would infer that each value 
of the pair indicates respectively how far left and how far right the 
bounding box of an object must minimally span.  The object's actual 
bounding box may exist further left or further right as needed.

Mind you, this inference could be completely wrong providing the 
variable name and/or documentation string are bogus to begin with.


-- Aaron Hill