lilypond-devel
[Top][All Lists]
Advanced

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

Re: names of vertical spacing dimensions


From: Carl Sorensen
Subject: Re: names of vertical spacing dimensions
Date: Wed, 13 Oct 2010 09:54:43 -0600



On 10/13/10 8:29 AM, "David Kastrup" <address@hidden> wrote:

> Carl Sorensen <address@hidden> writes:
> 
>> David Kastrup <address@hidden> writes:
>>> 
>> 
>>> 
>>> So my fear is that the new scheme is both strictly logical, and not
>>> useful for specifying a coherent document layout.
>> 
>> But the new scheme is just a restatement (renaming) of the current
>> scheme.
> 
> The renaming moves from a document design perspective (high level) to an
> implementation one (low level).  The use of those variables, however, is
> inside of the layout block which is supposed to be a document design
> specification.
> 
> It also moves from an essentially one-dimensional parameter realm
> "above-x, between-x, below-x, above-y, between-y, below-y" to a
> two-dimensional matrix "between-x-x, between-x-y" ...
> 
> This does not make it feasible to introduce further layout components
> for spacing since the parameter growth becomes quadratic.

So you think it's better to have vague names for a fundamentally quadratic
spacing scheme, instead of having names that reflect the quadratic nature of
the scheme?

I don't think I agree with this position.

> 
>> Mark is not trying to *redo* the document layout algorithms; he's
>> trying to *rename* the document layout properties.
>> 
>> It appears that this effort has been helpful in at least two ways: (1)
>> it is strictly logical, and (2) it has helped to identify some of the
>> limitations of the document layout algorithms.
>> 
>> Perhaps in the future these limitations can be resolved.
> 
> If the naming scheme is tightly coupled with the limitations, any
> resolution and/or improvement would require a complete overhaul of
> existing layout specifications.
> 
> So I don't see this change of the naming scheme as a change that
> encourages further work on layout specification improvement.

Clarifying the quadratic nature of the layout engine functionality certainly
identifies the weakness of the current approach.

Thanks,

Carl




reply via email to

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