Sorry - I should have replied to this earlier, but I was away from my computer. In woodwinds, I believe that the "make-connected-shape-stencil" does exactly this - I use it to draw paths and automate finding extents. Rather than adding two things w/ similar functionalities to Lilypond, I think it would be intelligent to roll both of them into one. Patrick: can you look at the patch and let me know what you think? I have no objection to changing my work if you feel that there is a better way to implement it along the lines of the patch that you've uploaded.
~Mike On 6/26/10 2:06 AM, "pnor...@gmail.com" <pnor...@gmail.com> wrote: > On 2010/06/22 03:50:24, Carl wrote: >> On 2010/06/21 22:39:53, Patrick McCarty wrote: >>> On 2010/06/20 11:07:37, Carl wrote: >>>> Is it possible to have the path command estimate reasonable >>>> extents, rather than using (0 . 0) and (0 . 0)? Since we >>>> know the thickness of the line, and we have a list of >>>> points, it seems we should be able to keep track of the >>>> maximum and minimum X and Y coordinates during the path >>>> creation. >>> >>> This should be possible, but I'm not sure how to implement it, >>> especially when relative coordinates are involved. > >> My first thought would be to start with currentx=currenty= >> xmax=xmin=ymax=ymin = 0. > >> For an absolute move, set currentx = move x, currenty = move y. > >> For a relative move, set currentx += movex, currenty += movey. > >> If currentx > xmax, xmax=currentx. If currenty > ymax, >> ymax=currenty. If currentx < xmin, xmin = currentx. If >> currenty < ymin, ymin = currenty. > >> For curves, go one point at a time. The control points bound >> the curve, so you can use the control points as if they were >> curve points. > >> When you're done with all the points, add half the thickness to >> xmax and ymax, and subtract half the thickness from xmin and >> ymin. > >> I haven't tried it, but it seems to me it should work. > > Hi Carl, > > Thanks for your help. > > I've uploaded a new patch set that (more or less) follows your > algorithm above, and also changes the interface again (according > to Han-Wen's and Jan's comments). > > Let me know what you think. > > Thanks, > Patrick > > > http://codereview.appspot.com/1730044/show > > _______________________________________________ > lilypond-devel mailing list > lilypond-devel@gnu.org > http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel > _______________________________________________ lilypond-devel mailing list lilypond-devel@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
