Re: Buggy WITH-TEXT-STYLE Macro??

• To: meir@watson.ibm.com
• Subject: Re: Buggy WITH-TEXT-STYLE Macro??
• From: "John G. Aspinall" <JGA@stony-brook.scrc.symbolics.com>
• Date: Fri, 4 Dec 1992 11:54-0500
• Cc: clim@BBN.COM
• In-Reply-To: <9212041550.AA46883@fiasco.watson.ibm.com>

    Date: Fri, 4 Dec 1992 10:50 EST
    From: Meir Laker <meir@watson.ibm.com>

    How about separating the "weight" of the font (i.e, bold, non-bold)
    from the "slant" of the font (i.e., italic, roman) and having a text
    style specified as a quadruple (family, slant, weight, size)?  Then,
    the algorithm for merging remains the same.

(Good idea, although note that the use of "italic" as a synonym for
"slanted" is typographically incorrect.  It is possible to have an
italic font that isn't slanted.  Knuth gives an example of this
somewhere in "The TeXBook".)

More to the point, I agree.  However CLIM defines the components of a
text-style, and however many there are I think that:

  The "atoms" of merging behaviour should be those components.

We can debate about whether a three-component model should be replaced
with a four-component model, but that's a lesser issue for me.  Keyword
arguments to specify little modifications to merging behaviour are THE
WRONG THING imho.  Let's keep some clarity in this interface.

0,,

• Re: Buggy WITH-TEXT-STYLE Macro??
• From: Scott McKay <SWM@stony-brook.scrc.symbolics.com>

• Re: Buggy WITH-TEXT-STYLE Macro??
• From: Meir Laker <meir@watson.ibm.com>

• Prev: text-style to font mapping algorithm
• Next: Re: Buggy WITH-TEXT-STYLE Macro??
• Index: CLIM Mailing list (1-Sep-92 to 31-Dec-92)
• Thread: CLIM Mailing list Index (1-Sep-92 to 31-Dec-92)