Re: stencils: let some stencils carry a box-extent; issue 3255 (issue 9295044)

[k-ohara5a5a]

On 2013/06/11 06:40:13, lemzwerg wrote:

> Yes, the union, since the documentation of \pad-to box says `at least
the X-EXT,
> Y-EXT space'.  However, the documentation strings for all \pad-XXX
functions
> should be updated accordingly.

But \pad-around #-1 does work to reduce the extent of markup,
and there is no reason to disallow that.

>   In particular, I can't see any difference
> between \pad-around and \pad-markup.  Uh, oh, looking closely at the
source code
> I see that they are completely identical, even after your patch!  This
should
> probably be fixed too, both in the docs and in the code...

There is no harm in having both.  There might be people who habitually
use
each, and we cannot convert-ly their brains to use whichever one we
pick.

https://codereview.appspot.com/9295044/