Re: Allow scripts to be defined either as glyphs or stencils. (issue 348120043 by address@hidden)

[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 it? (At least, as long as it isn’t unsmobbed.)
If I do

if (scm_is_pair (s) {} else *unsmob<Stencil> (s)

the stencil expression in "s" will never reach the "else" subroutine.

> I don't understand where the difference in what you do with
script-stencil as a
> property and what you would do with stencil as a property would lie.

Forgive me for not understanding what you mean right away.  Right now,
Script.stencil is defined as ly:script-interface::print which is where
glyphs are looked up (or, with this new patch, stencil expressions),
then printed.  Are you suggesting that we scrap this interface and make
Script.stencil point to a Scheme callback instead?
V⋅.


https://codereview.appspot.com/348120043/