Re: horizontal spacing regression

[Jan Warchoł]

2011/1/15 Trevor Daniels <address@hidden>
>
> Jan Warchoł wrote Saturday, January 15, 2011 9:21 AM
>
>
> > 2011/1/14 Keith OHara <address@hidden>:
> >> The extra-spacing-height seems to do just the right thing. True, it gives
> >> no extra space when the interval is larger {c be be f } but neither did
> >> 2.12.3 and I think we don't need it there.
> >
> > No, in my opinion it's really bad!
> > I mean, this
> >
> > \version "2.13.45"
> > {
> >  \override Accidental #'extra-spacing-height = #'(-0.5 . 0.5)
> >  \repeat unfold 12 {f'8 bes' d'' f'' \noBreak }
> > }
> >
> > looks to my eye worse than this:
> >
> >\version "2.13.45"
> > {
> >   \repeat unfold 12 {f'8 bes' d'' f'' \noBreak }
> > }
> >
> > I'd say that the optimal layout would be somewhere in between.
>
> I agree somewhere inbeween would be optimal.  Perhaps something
> like this (the override is just a frig to demonstrate my
> preferred positioning, not a solution, of course):
>
> {
>   \repeat unfold 6 {
>     \once \override NoteHead #'X-extent = #'(0 . 1.8)
>     f'8 bes' d'' f'' \noBreak
>     f'8 bes' d'' f'' \noBreak
>   }
> }

I'd go for as small as NoteHead #'X-extent = #'(0 . 1.5) .

> I realise this is not possible to achieve without
> getting into the spacing code, though.  And this is
> taking it beyond solving the regression, so it
> should be a separate issue for 2.15.

+1

Janek