Re: stencil-integral: use box extents specified in markup; issue 3255 (issue 9295044)

[Mike Solomon]

On 30 août 2013, at 07:49, "Keith OHara" <address@hidden> wrote:

> On Thu, 29 Aug 2013 21:24:25 -0700, <address@hidden> wrote:
> 
>> Conceptually, I prefer (1), but this is based on your descriptions and
>> the previous discussion, not on understanding the code...
>> 
> 
> Then look at (2) and see if you think that would be good enough to clear the 
> last bugs before 2.18.
> 
> The uses of \transparent, \pad-to-box, etc., are rare.
> It hurts very little to find ourselves stuck with a second-choice 
> implementation in this case.
> We won't know what our first-choice implementation is unless we see some 
> application examples in this area.
> 

I'd still argue that (2) is the best way to go as it is a one-stop-shopping way 
to clear all these bugs (and perhaps more) as they arise.

To me, the question is "Is the implementation of (2) inferior to (1) to the 
point where we'd like to allow certain bugs to persist?"  My answer is no - 
LilyPond has already a practice of creating placeholder stencils whose sole 
purpose is to reserve space and (2) is in this vein.  (2) does for skylines 
what the empty-stencil does for dimensions.  Additionally, (2) clears all the 
stencil-related skyline bugs on the tracker, whereas (1) does not.

So my vote is for (2).

Cheers,
MS