[Top][All Lists]
[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/
- Still missing some ancient clefs, Laura Conrad, 2002/08/27
- Re: Still missing some ancient clefs, Juergen Reuter, 2002/08/28
- Re: Still missing some ancient clefs, Laura Conrad, 2002/08/28
- Re: Still missing some ancient clefs, Juergen Reuter, 2002/08/28
- Re: Still missing some ancient clefs, Juergen Reuter, 2002/08/28
- Re: Still missing some ancient clefs, Laura Conrad, 2002/08/28
- [Patch] Bugfix (Was: Re: Still missing some ancient clefs), Juergen Reuter, 2002/08/28
- [Patch] Bugfix (Was: Re: Still missing some ancient clefs), Han-Wen Nienhuys, 2002/08/28
- Re: [Patch] Bugfix (Was: Re: Still missing some ancient clefs), Juergen Reuter, 2002/08/29
- Re: [Patch] Bugfix (Was: Re: Still missing some ancient clefs),
Han-Wen Nienhuys <=
- Re: [Patch] Bugfix (Was: Re: Still missing some ancient clefs), Juergen Reuter, 2002/08/29
- Re: [Patch] Bugfix (Was: Re: Still missing some ancient clefs), Han-Wen Nienhuys, 2002/08/29
- Re: [Patch] Bugfix (Was: Re: Still missing some ancient clefs), Juergen Reuter, 2002/08/29
- Re: [Patch] Bugfix (Was: Re: Still missing some ancient clefs), Mats Bengtsson, 2002/08/30
- Re: [Patch] Bugfix (Was: Re: Still missing some ancient clefs), Juergen Reuter, 2002/08/30
- Re: [Patch] Bugfix (Was: Re: Still missing some ancient clefs), Laura Conrad, 2002/08/29
- Re: [Patch] Bugfix (Was: Re: Still missing some ancient clefs), Juergen Reuter, 2002/08/29
- Re: [Patch] Bugfix (Was: Re: Still missing some ancient clefs), Laura Conrad, 2002/08/29