CLIM mail archive
Re: Buggy WITH-TEXT-STYLE Macro??
Date: Fri, 4 Dec 1992 11:54 EST
From: "John G. Aspinall" <JGA@stony-brook.scrc.symbolics.com>
Date: Fri, 4 Dec 1992 10:50 EST
From: Meir Laker <email@example.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.
At one time, somebody half-jokingly proposed new type-face "atoms"
called :BOLDER and :ITALICER (by analogy with :SMALLER and :LARGER).
All of us (including the proposer) laughed at the time, but now I
wonder if that might not have been the right thing to do...
Main Index |