Re: Allow scripts to be defined either as glyphs or stencils. (issue 348120043 by v.villen...@gmail.com)

2019-02-24 Thread dak
On 2019/02/24 08:48:22, Valentin Villenave wrote: I’m still bothered by the way script-interface.cc is written, specifically the hardcoded "feta" reference which I tried to address; do you have any thoughts on that? (Other than that, it appears there’s very little to salvage from my patch

Re: Allow scripts to be defined either as glyphs or stencils. (issue 348120043 by v.villen...@gmail.com)

2019-02-24 Thread v . villenave
On 2019/02/23 22:40:44, dak wrote: Sure, but you are trying to override stencils, aren't you? Why do you even place an entry for "script-stencil" then instead of just placing an entry for "stencil"? Oh. I’ve been an idiot from the start: it simply never occurred to me that the script-alist

Re: Allow scripts to be defined either as glyphs or stencils. (issue 348120043 by v.villen...@gmail.com)

2019-02-23 Thread David Kastrup
v.villen...@gmail.com writes: > On 2019/02/22 22:11:58, dak wrote: >> There is some fundamental confusion here. A stencil expression is a > list. It >> never satisfies the ly:stencil? predicate and always satisfies the > pair? >> predicate. > > Oh, I see. I mixed up "unsmob" and "eval": a stenc

Re: Allow scripts to be defined either as glyphs or stencils. (issue 348120043 by v.villen...@gmail.com)

2019-02-23 Thread v . villenave
On 2019/02/22 22:11:58, dak wrote: There is some fundamental confusion here. A stencil expression is a list. It never satisfies the ly:stencil? predicate and always satisfies the pair? predicate. Oh, I see. I mixed up "unsmob" and "eval": a stencil expression becomes a Stencil when it’s

Re: Allow scripts to be defined either as glyphs or stencils. (issue 348120043 by v.villen...@gmail.com)

2019-02-22 Thread dak
On 2019/02/22 21:51:39, Valentin Villenave wrote: On 2019/02/22 21:00:08, dak wrote: > You are confusing stencils with stencil expressions. Stencils satisfy > ly:stencil? and you can extract their stencil expression (which usually is a > pair) with ly:stencil-expr . Yes, but what we’re de

Re: Allow scripts to be defined either as glyphs or stencils. (issue 348120043 by v.villen...@gmail.com)

2019-02-22 Thread v . villenave
On 2019/02/22 21:00:08, dak wrote: You are confusing stencils with stencil expressions. Stencils satisfy ly:stencil? and you can extract their stencil expression (which usually is a pair) with ly:stencil-expr . Yes, but what we’re dealing with in this function is a stencil expression, isn’t

Re: Allow scripts to be defined either as glyphs or stencils. (issue 348120043 by v.villen...@gmail.com)

2019-02-22 Thread v . villenave
Reviewers: dak, Message: Thanks David! You make valid points, I just have a couple of doubts below. https://codereview.appspot.com/348120043/diff/1/input/regression/script-stencil.ly File input/regression/script-stencil.ly (right): https://codereview.appspot.com/348120043/diff/1/input/regressi

Re: Allow scripts to be defined either as glyphs or stencils. (issue 348120043 by v.villen...@gmail.com)

2019-02-22 Thread dak
https://codereview.appspot.com/348120043/diff/1/lily/script-interface.cc File lily/script-interface.cc (right): https://codereview.appspot.com/348120043/diff/1/lily/script-interface.cc#newcode36 lily/script-interface.cc:36: Script_interface::get_glyph_or_stencil (Grob *me, Direction d) On 2019/0

Allow scripts to be defined either as glyphs or stencils. (issue 348120043 by v.villen...@gmail.com)

2019-02-22 Thread dak
https://codereview.appspot.com/348120043/diff/1/input/regression/script-stencil.ly File input/regression/script-stencil.ly (right): https://codereview.appspot.com/348120043/diff/1/input/regression/script-stencil.ly#newcode31 input/regression/script-stencil.ly:31: #(append! default-script-alist