[Top][All Lists]

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

Re: Creates a Flag grob. (issue 4922042)

From: Mike Solomon
Subject: Re: Creates a Flag grob. (issue 4922042)
Date: Thu, 25 Aug 2011 12:51:39 +0200

On Aug 25, 2011, at 12:03 PM, Mike Solomon wrote:

> On Aug 24, 2011, at 11:53 PM, address@hidden wrote:
> Thanks for your suggestions Neil!
> I'm holding off on pushing the patch because I have noticed a spacing 
> discrepancy in a few regtests.  See the attached, where "old" is current 
> master and "new" is with my patch.  The spacing between the last 16th note 
> and the quarter is too tight.
> I have verified via pacifier prints that the pure heights of the flag are 
> being taken from the stencil function and are going into the spacing engine 
> in  However, in theory, this patch should have null 
> effect on the minimum and ideal distances of paper columns.  This is not the 
> case (see attached).
> Happily (bizarrely), if I add the flag to the NoteColumn's elements 
> grob-array in the rhythmic-column engraver, this problem goes away in the 
> opposite sense: the paper column's minimum and ideal distances become wider 
> (see attached).  I'm tending towards doing this, but it also seems subpar 
> (unless someone can vouch that the previous spacing somehow mishandled flags).
> If anyone has any intuition as to why this is happening, I'd be much obliged 
> if you'd share it with me.
> Cheers,
> MS

Addendum - it appears that the width of the paper column of a 16th note + flag 
in current master is 2.1522 whereas in with my flag work it is 2.2172.  This is 
the length of the discrepancy between paper column ideal and minimum distances 
when the flag is added to the note head's element list.  It is also the length 
(0.0650) of the x offset of the flag with respect to its x parent, the stem.

Current master's width is correct, but oddly, the two print out the same 
results on the page (at least they look the same in terms of the flags x offset 
with respect to the stem).  That means that, somehow, the flag's x offset with 
respect to its parent is being tacked on in a way it shouldn't.

I'll keep digging (as best I can) and keep reporting results as I find them.


reply via email to

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