bug-lilypond
[Top][All Lists]

## Re: Spacing bug

 From: Mats Bengtsson Subject: Re: Spacing bug Date: Wed, 05 Oct 2005 10:23:32 +0200 User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.7.6) Gecko/20050319



Wiz Aus wrote:

The following file tries to squeeze onto one line when it clearly doesn't fit (the double barline at the end is cut off, for a start):

What double bar line? Your last bar has only 5/8, so there is no bar
line printed at all. If you want a double bar line at the end of a
piece, you have to specify it explicitly, \bar "|.".

You have found an extreme case, where LilyPond will break the line as
soon as you add another bar. Also, I've almost only seen these tight
spacings in scores with a single bar, i.e. as soon as LilyPond starts
breaking the piece into several lines, then it will usually never
give this tight spacing even on the last line. So, there are very few
real pieces of music where you see this tight spacing.

Still, I agree with you that especially the spacing between the last
note of each measure the following bar line is too tight. As far as I
can see, there is no way to specify a minimum distance for that setting,
in contrast to all other spacings, for example between the time
signature and the first note.



\relative{
\time 3/4
c8 d e f g a
c, d16 d e8 f g a
c, d e16 e f8 g a
c, d e f16 f g8 a
c,8. d16 e8 f g8. a16
r8 d, e f g a
c, d e f g r
r d e r f g
c, r e r g
}


I was actually creating this file to see what beaming policies lilypond uses - to me the 2nd last bar here looks a bit odd for 3/4 (it looks like a 6/8 bar), but to be honest, I'm not sure how it would automatically determine a better configuration. The 6th bar isn't perhaps ideal either, I suspect most publishers would prefer not to beam the f to the g. I assume the rule it's using is that quavers are beamed over beat (crotchet) boundaries - shorter notes are only beamed within each beat. Probably reasonable enough for 99% of cases anyway.

I recommend Section "8.6.2 Setting automatic beam behavior" in the
manual for version 2.7 (the contents is relevant also for version 2.6,
you didn't say what you use) for more insights.


Actually one other thing - why is the duration number necessary when using a dot? I would expect to be able to type "c,. d16 e8 f g. a16" for the 5th bar here, but it doesn't work. The documentation doesn't suggest that the duration number is required, but all the examples include it.

I don't know any specific reason, but I don't think it hurts, the input
syntax can be confusing enough anyway. Consider for example what
c4 c. c.
would mean if the duration numbers weren't necessary (it would be the
same as
c4 c4. c4..
which probably would surprise many).

/Mats