Re: Gets rid of length in the docs. (issue 4965053)

[Trevor Daniels]

Mike, you wrote Tuesday, August 30, 2011 3:41 PM


> As I stated in a previous mail, it is easy to 
> re-instate a length property in the stem-interface 
> and then build it into either Stem::internal_height 
> or Stem::print.  I have no problem with this.

I'd vote for this.  Let's see what others think.

> What do you mean when you say that all the Scheme 
> stuff goes in the Extending manual?  #5 is Scheme, 
> as is #(stem::length 5), as is ly:note-head::print.  

Yes, I should have explained a little more clearly.
The LM, which we expect all users to read, does not
explain Scheme syntax.  Introducing overrides, it 
simply says:

"For now, don't worry about the #', which must precede 
the layout property, and the #, which must precede the 
value.  These must always be present in exactly this form."

Even the NR doesn't venture much further, mentioning
only alists.

Everything else was moved to the Extending manual,
after a short Scheme primer.  (Although in passing
I should say this is still very unsatisfactory.)
Few users will read this.

> All I think should be explained in the docs is 
> Y-extent: I'm certainly not suggesting that advanced 
> Scheme concepts be explained here.

Yes, but this use of Y-extent is different from all(?)
others, isn't it?  Normally Y-extent affects only the
placement of following grobs, IIUC, not the size of
them.  So the explanation would not be trivial, and
to my mind unsuitable for a Learning Manual.
 
> But, again, this 
> is outside my realm of expertise - whatever you feel 
> is best for UI is what you should go with.  If you 
> ask me "please write length back into the source so 
> that it does what it did in 2.15.8," I'll do it 
> tomorrow afternoon and have it on Rietveld before I 
> leave so that someone can push it in my absence if 
> they so choose.

I don't think it's that urgent.  Let's see what view
emerges first.

Trevor