Knuth maximum demerit value.

2004-12-07 Thread Finn Bock
Hi, What is the logic behind the INFINITE_DEMERITS = 1E11 ? Having a threshold of 20 can result in a demerit value of (1 + 100 * 20 ** 3) ** 2 == 6.400016E11 for the first KnuthNode which is then ignored since it is worse than the initial demerit value. I would guess that when we use a ratio

Re: Marker.rebind()

2004-12-07 Thread Finn Bock
[Simon] I have just committed a patch which fixes bug 32253. One problem remains: the text in the marker does not always have the right properties, e.g. the right size. This is probably due to the fact that Marker.rebind() does not rebind the whole subtree below a marker. Your right! It seems that

Marker.rebind()

2004-12-07 Thread Simon Pepping
Hi, I have just committed a patch which fixes bug 32253. One problem remains: the text in the marker does not always have the right properties, e.g. the right size. This is probably due to the fact that Marker.rebind() does not rebind the whole subtree below a marker. Regards, Simon -- Simon Pe

DO NOT REPLY [Bug 32253] - Marker bugs

2004-12-07 Thread bugzilla
DO NOT REPLY TO THIS EMAIL, BUT PLEASE POST YOUR BUGĀ· RELATED COMMENTS THROUGH THE WEB INTERFACE AVAILABLE AT . ANY REPLY MADE TO THIS MESSAGE WILL NOT BE COLLECTED ANDĀ· INSERTED IN THE BUG DATABASE. http://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bu

Re: cvs commit: xml-fop/src/java/org/apache/fop/layoutmgrKnuthElement.java KnuthBox.java KnuthGlue.java KnuthPenalty.java

2004-12-07 Thread Glen Mazza
Sounds good. --- Luca Furini <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Glen Mazza wrote: > > > Luca, I think we should be using getWidth() > instead of > > getW(), correct? > > Yes, it would be much clearer! > I'm going to rename: > getW() -> getWidth() > getY() -> getStretch() > getZ() -> getShrink()

Re: cvs commit: xml-fop/src/java/org/apache/fop/layoutmgrKnuthElement.java KnuthBox.java KnuthGlue.java KnuthPenalty.java

2004-12-07 Thread Luca Furini
Glen Mazza wrote: > Luca, I think we should be using getWidth() instead of > getW(), correct? Yes, it would be much clearer! I'm going to rename: getW() -> getWidth() getY() -> getStretch() getZ() -> getShrink() getP() -> getPenaltyValue() The last name is quite long: I first thought of