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

[David Kastrup]

"Keith OHara" <address@hidden> writes:

> On Thu, 13 Jun 2013 01:02:34 -0700, <address@hidden> wrote:
>
>> On 2013/06/13 07:45:09, Keith wrote:
>>
>>> It could be 'dimension-stencil as it lives alongside 'rotate-stencil,
>>> 'scale-stencil, etc.,
>>
>> Well, "rotate" and "scale" are verbs and "dimension" isn't, so that
>> particular form has me less than enthused.  I am also not a fan of
>> inventing new and unrelated naming schemes for facets of implementing
>> the same functionality.
>>
>
> Okay.  It implements \pad-around so  'pad-around-stencil it is.

At the danger of sounding like an ..., it doesn't.  The arguments are
wrong for that.  \pad-around is implemented in terms of \with-dimensions
(not literally but functionally), not the other way round.

While one could also provide pad-around-stencil with the semantics of
\pad-around, keeping the number of primitives to be implemented in every
backend to a minimum seems prudent.

-- 
David Kastrup