Re: Potential fix for issue 1504. (issue4237057)

[mike]

On Mar 13, 2011, at 10:30 PM, address@hidden wrote:

> 
> http://codereview.appspot.com/4237057/diff/11001/lily/beam.cc
> File lily/beam.cc (right):
> 
> http://codereview.appspot.com/4237057/diff/11001/lily/beam.cc#newcode206
> lily/beam.cc:206: orig->set_property ("feather-fraction", scm_cons
> (scm_from_double (0.0), scm_from_double (orig->spanner_length ())));
> my suggestion was for fraction to be a real fraction, ie. a number from
> 0.0 to 1.0, relative to the total length of the beam. That also gives
> users a way to tune the featheriness they want from their beams (they
> could set it to 0.0 - 2.0 to exaggerate the effect for instance), in a
> scale-free way.  My idea was also to put the effect of feather-dir into
> this pair, ie. feather=LEFT =>  (1.0 . 0.0)  and RIGHT => (0.0 . 1.0)
> 
> Does that sound right? I think you would be able to do without
> feather-dir in the print callback.
> 
> http://codereview.appspot.com/4237057/diff/11001/lily/include/spanner.hh
> File lily/include/spanner.hh (right):
> 
> http://codereview.appspot.com/4237057/diff/11001/lily/include/spanner.hh#newcode76
> lily/include/spanner.hh:76: static int broken_spanner_index (Spanner
> const *sp);
> this can go now?
> 
> http://codereview.appspot.com/4237057/diff/11001/scm/define-grobs.scm
> File scm/define-grobs.scm (right):
> 
> http://codereview.appspot.com/4237057/diff/11001/scm/define-grobs.scm#newcode329
> scm/define-grobs.scm:329: (after-line-breaking .
> ,ly:beam::calc-feather-widths)
> I recommend hooking this up to feather-fraction directly, so you can be
> sure it's always calculated at the right time, namely, when needed.
> 
> Beyond setting the fractions for all beams,
> you'd have to return the fraction pair for the beam part on which the
> callback gets called

I've sketched this out using your suggestion above (calculating it once and 
returning the fraction for the called beam) - nevermind my previous question 
about redoing calculations. A new patch set is on-line.

I still need to do the math for the longer slopes - I'll have time to do that 
later today or tomorrow.

In the spirit of the one-change-per-push idea, I'd like to push the fix to 1504 
first before I push the change to feather-direction.  Does this seem like a 
good idea?

Cheers,
MS