@SubSection
@Tag { genesis }
@Title { The genesis of the object abstraction }
@Begin
@PP
When one examines previous document formatting systems [4]
looking for ideas for abstractions, as the author did in 1984, the Eqn
formatting language [5] stands out like a beacon. In
Eqn, a mathematical formula such as
@ID @Eq { { x sup 2 + 1 } over 4 }
is produced by typing
@ID @Code "{ x sup 2 + 1 } over 4"
in the input file; @Code sup and @Code over are binary operators, and
braces are used for grouping. This is document formatting at a very
high level, close to the language of mathematics itself, with all
reference to font changes and spacing suppressed.
@PP
Eqn provides a single data type (let us call it the {@I expression}),
built up recursively in context-free style: where one expression may appear,
any expression may appear. This approach is common in algebra and
programming languages, where its simplicity and expressiveness have long
been appreciated; but Eqn was the first language to demonstrate its
utility in document formatting.
@PP
Each expression is treated by Eqn as a rectangle with a
{@I {horizontal axis}}, used for alignment with adjacent expressions:
@ID @ShowMarks marks { horizontal } @Eq { { x sup 2 + 1 } over 4 }
The size and rendering of the expression on the printed page are
known only to the implementation, never explicitly calculated or
accessed by the user. This prohibition is
crucial to the maintenance of the context-free property in practice. In
Lout, for example, equations, figures, tables, and arbitrary objects may
be mixed together freely. This would be impossible if size information
was hidden from the implementation in user calculations.
@PP
The object abstraction of Lout is a direct descendant of the Eqn
expression. It employs the same context-free recursive style of construction,
and each object is treated by Lout as a rectangle:
@ID @Fig {
@ShowMarks { 1c @Wide ^| 2c @Wide 0.45c @High ^/ 0.35c @High }
}
The horizontal axis, called a @I { row mark } in Lout, has a
vertical analogue called a {@I {column mark}}, creating a valuable
symmetry between horizontal and vertical. Multiple column and row marks
are permitted:
@ID @OneRow @Fig {
A:: @Box margin { 0c } paint { grey } { 1.2c @Wide 0.8c @High }
|1c
B:: @Box margin { 0c } paint { grey } { 1c @Wide 0.8c @High }
/0.5c
C:: @Box margin { 0c } paint { grey } { 0.7c @Wide 0.8c @High }
|1c
D:: @Box margin { 0c } paint { grey } { 1.3c @Wide 0.8c @High }
// @Line linestyle { dashed }
from { A@W -- { 0.3 cm 0 } }
to { B@W ++ { 1.6 cm 0 } }
// @Line linestyle { dashed }
from { C@W -- { 0.3 cm 0 } }
to { D@W ++ { 1.6 cm 0 } }
// @Line linestyle { dashed }
from { A@NW ++ { 0 0.3 cm } }
to { C@SW -- { 0 0.3 cm } }
// @Line linestyle { dashed }
from { B@NW ++ { 0.3 cm 0.3 cm } }
to { D@SW ++ { 0.3 cm -0.3 cm } }
}
so that objects are able to represent tables.
@PP
This abstraction has some limitations, the most obvious being the restriction
of size calculations to rectangular bounding boxes. Non-rectangular and
disconnected shapes arise naturally in figures and in the characters of
fonts; the extension to them is conceptually straightforward and might
help to explain some fine points of layout such as kerning. However,
there are implementation and language design problems, particularly
when filling non-rectangular shapes with text, and so the author chose
to keep to Eqn's rectangles.
@PP
A more fundamental limitation of the object abstraction arises from the
inability of recursive data types to describe cross-linked structures,
which seem to require some means of naming the multiply referenced
parts. Lout is obliged to introduce additional abstractions to cope
with cross linking: galleys for inserting text into pages
(Section {@NumberOf galleys}), cross references (Section {@NumberOf cross}),
and labelled points in figure drawing [6]. An
abstraction closer to hypertext might form a more unified basis for
these features.
@End @SubSection
