Re: GSOC: change XY-extent to outer-XY-extent and inner-XY-extent (design - feedback requested)

[Janek Warchoł]

On Mon, Jun 18, 2012 at 6:29 PM, Joe Neeman <address@hidden> wrote:
> The only difference is that I'm proposing
> to make it possible to define aligned_on_y_parent in scheme, given that
> aligned_on_parent is defined in C++. This part is basically what will allow
> us to avoid hard-coding a single name (like "core-extent") into the C++
> code.

What about giving more power to alignment properties?  Currently
self-alignment-[XY] is quite limited - you cannot specify parent and
child alignment separately, you cannot specify which parent you want,
and the name is confusing (after all, when aligned-on-[xy]-parent is
used, parent's extent matters, too).
I hope to cook a draft demonstrating this tomorrow.

> In the medium/long term, it's probably worth while having some sort of C++
> infrastructure for this, since there are several existing callback functions
> that might benefit.

I have an impression that this may even allow to replace many
different functions with a single unified system.

> In the short term, I'd suggest doing a scheme
> implementation of a simple example, just to get the hang of how the pieces
> fit together (ie. don't even look at simple-closure.cc yet). It's _much_
> easier to write higher-order functions in scheme.

Well, not yet for me :)  I'll stick with c++ at the moment and try properties.

cheers,
Janek