Re: improved accidental algorithm (with images)

[Jan Nieuwenhuizen]

Werner LEMBERG <address@hidden> writes:

>>    * accidentals for octaves always have same x-position (unless
>>      maybe this eats too much x-space in chords with accidentals on
>>      seconds).  See Fig 2.
>
> Interestingly, this rule isn't a very strong one in piano music,
> especially if seconds occur.

Uh, I think that's exactly what Wanske says, and what I wanted to
say.  Maybe the 'unless' should have been in all-caps, and not inside
parentheses.  I think fig 2 shows this, as optimal example?

> Most engravers prefer to tweak accidentals horizontally as much as
> possible, dropping the octave alignment.  All my examples were real
> examples found in well-engraved editions of Liszt, Chopin, etc.

Yes, less horizontal space -- good.

>> However, I don't understand why in your chord3.png, you put the flat
>> closer to the chord than the c's natural sign.  See Fig 1.
>
> The idea is that the position of the accidentals imitate the positions
> of the affected notes in the chord; this avoids that one of the three
> accents is too far away.

Oops.  I overlooked that.  I think that you may be right.

> BTW, I was in doubt whether the lowest accidental can really move that
> far to the right for this interval (since it still touches the note
> above); it is perhaps difficult to code also.

Indeed, it touches.  Where the y distance one half staff space
greater, it would be ok.  Now I think it would be a matter of the
available space, and the engraver's taste.  I'd say next to impossble
to code.

To summarize, it looks like your algorithm is quite ok.

Jan.

-- 
Jan Nieuwenhuizen <address@hidden> | GNU LilyPond - The music typesetter
http://www.xs4all.nl/~jantien       | http://www.lilypond.org