Aaron Hill <lilyp...@hillvisions.com> writes: > On 2020-06-17 1:35 am, Peter Toye wrote: >> Robin, >> Thanks. Fair enough. I guessed and experimented and got the result >> that I wanted. But I'm not quite sure how I managed it! >> A problem I had with minimum-X-extent is that it's a pair, but the >> description describes it as a distance, which I'd have thought was a >> single number! > > Hmm. > > ==== > minimum-X-extent (pair of numbers) > Minimum size of an object in X dimension, measured in staff-space > units. > ==== > > I see no mention of "distance", but "size" might often be thought of > as a singular value. In reality, extents are closer to "bounds" than > "size". While the docs are pretty clear about the value being a pair > of numbers, perhaps we should update the extent-related properties to > use "bounds" as opposed to "size".
Minimum bounds? Frankly, the description is rather useless. Without looking up the actual code, I would have no idea what the two numbers here are supposed to signify, respectively. -- David Kastrup
