lilypond-devel
[Top][All Lists]
Advanced

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [Patch] Bugfix (Was: Re: Still missing some ancient clefs)


From: Han-Wen Nienhuys
Subject: Re: [Patch] Bugfix (Was: Re: Still missing some ancient clefs)
Date: Thu, 29 Aug 2002 13:46:33 +0200

address@hidden writes:
> 
> 
> On Thu, 29 Aug 2002, Han-Wen Nienhuys wrote:
> 
> > address@hidden writes:
> >
> > > +    (if (string-match "vaticana*|hufnagel*|medicaea*" style)
> > > + (cons (symbol->string style) "ancient")
> > > + (cons (string-append (number->string (max 0 duration))
> > > +                      (symbol->string style))
> > > +       "music")))))
> >
> > Do I understand correctly that this patch does a regex match for every
> > note head in the default setting?
> 
> No, last year, you explained that you want the default style be set to
> 'default' rather than leaving it undefined (I think to avoid various
> crashes, IIRC).  Consequently, this is exactly, what is currently done in
> scm/grob-description.scm:
> 
>     (NoteHead
>      . (
>       (style . default)

Ah, I'm not being very consistent. -- Where can I find the mail where
I said that? (time for some reflection :-)

In general, the idea is to have undefined ( '() ) give save default
behavior, but in some cases this leads to weird property names
(noAutoBeaming) or weird code; in those cases the lesser bad thing is
to have explicit defaults. I'm probably don't follow the ancient code
close enough to understand what or where the issues are (sorry).

> As a result, the regex match only occurs, if it neither set to 'default',
> nor to one of any explicitly defined style other than the
> vatican/medicaea/hufnagel ones.  Hence, it will not slow down the default
> case.

OK. I'll apply it then.

> See above.
> 
> BTW., this bug is yet another symptom of the font-family problem.  We
> *really* should do something about it, or it will hunt us forever!  I
> think your recent suggestion to implement a virtual font with more than
> 256 characters points into the right direction (and comes effectively
> close to what I vaguely suggested half a year ago).

I'm looking forward to receiving a patch, OTOH, this delves deeply
into the core, so maybe I should try writing the code myself. Let me
know when you start tackling it, otherwise we might do double work.  

-- 
Han-Wen Nienhuys   |   address@hidden    | http://www.cs.uu.nl/~hanwen/





reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]