[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: Non-quadratic form of whiteout

From: Thomas Morley
Subject: Re: Non-quadratic form of whiteout
Date: Sun, 16 Sep 2018 20:30:09 +0200

2018-09-16 19:36 GMT+02:00 Lukas-Fabian Moser <address@hidden>:
> Hi Harm,
> thanks much for the ideas and pointers to old discussions!
>> So my first suggestion would be to drop the boolean argument for
>> 'whiteout.
>> Instead let the user decide. Providing a number shouldn't be too hard.
>> Dropping the boolean was already disussed here:
>> Though, I don't see much arguments. otoh it's not unlikely I don't
>> understand the argument(s) ;)
>> A disadvantage would be the neeed to code some convert-rule (which is
>> beyond my coding-capabilities).
> I didn't do this because I didn't want to break existing scores. To me,
> removing the boolean variant which provides default values seems like
> killing a feature and not gaining much for it.

Well, why different defaults for default-box and rounded-box?
I see no point in it.

> Your statement sounds as if
> you dislike the clumsyness of "boolean or number or even something else"?

Indeed ;)
And I don't like a `thickness`-variable (in
stencil-whiteout-box/outline) may get the value #t.
Ok, this may be solvable by renaming thickness to whiteout-padding or the like.

>> Quite often users (including myself) want to customize the
>> whiteout-amount even more than currently possible.
>> So my second suggestion is to make whiteout accepting a number-or-pair.
>> A number would do what's already done with it.
>> A simple pair like '(1 . 2) would extent the whiteout-amount for
>> x-y-axis differently.
> This is exactly what I implemented (tried to implement).


>> A pair-list like '((1 . 2)(3 . 4)) would extent the whiteout-amount in
>> x-axis with the values of the first pair, in y-axis with the values of
>> the second pair.
> Good idea! But wouldn't it be cleaner to use a pair of pairs instead of a
> list of pairs?

Here I'm with David in his other post.
Even '((1 . 2) . (3 . 4)) is not nicely readable, imho.

>> Providing a pair or a pair-list will not work for 'outline ofcourse, I
>> don't have a good thought how to deal with this style, though.
>> Probably printing a message and/or providing some default, which may
>> be zero.
> This already opened a discussion which, I think, goes in an orthogonal
> direction - it already showed that 'outline whiteouts are a quinte different
> beast from boxes.

If we change whiteout to accept a pair, we should think about what
stencil-whiteout-outline should do with it, though.

> @Kieren et al.: Is there really a use-case for 'outline whiteout with
> changing thickness dependent on the angle? (But of course I agree that there
> are cases where even the 'outline technique we have now produces
> less-than-optimal results, as can already be seen in the discussions Harm
> pointed us to.)

Speaking only for myself, I never used whiteout-outline in
music-scores, there are always flaws...
It's more important for markup, thus the example using markup in my
previous post.
See also:


reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]