[Top][All Lists]

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

Re: Horizontal spacing change between 2.15.9 and 2.15.10 (regression?)

From: Xavier Scheuer
Subject: Re: Horizontal spacing change between 2.15.9 and 2.15.10 (regression?)
Date: Sun, 30 Oct 2011 12:03:58 +0100

On 30 October 2011 04:12, Keith OHara <address@hidden> wrote:
> fixed-space was there in 2.14.2, but it did not function since 2007.
> Did your score have the notes very close to the key signature, as in
>  <>
>  <>
> ?

Notes are closer to the key signature but with no confusion and it
remains perfectly readable, IMHO.  After a second look the measures
are indeed quite compressed, and the space between the bar line and the
first note is very very tight in the passage I am speaking about.

I attached the output for 2.14.2 and 2.15.6.  I was not able to reduce
it to a few measures, because with such minimal example LilyPond prints
only one measure per line, even with 2.14.2.  It is only with the full
score that I get 2 measures per line by default.
I'm sure you would recognise public domain's most famous piece of music!
I am hereby speaking of measures 20 and 21.  IMHO the overall output
was better with 2.14.2, but I assume LilyPond cannot improve for every
possible score but try to give a better output in general.

> Sometimes it becomes hard to read if the notes compress against the clefs
> and key signatures, but other times we would like to use every bit of space:
> <>
> In specific cases, of course, you can put a \noBreak to force more measures
> on one line.

Yes I know that.  But here I'd like to say "do not break after one
measure only, put at least 2 measures per line".  Something like
 min-measures-per-line = 2  (similar to a request made several times on
lilypond-user, as there is min-systems-per-page for vertical spacing).

I do not want to impose break (or "non-break"), because it would depend
on the first break.  For example, if I want to impose 2 measures per
line in a specific passage, let's say in the passage 1–4, in the fist
    … | 1 |
  | 2 | 3 |
  | 4 | …
I would have \noBreak between 2 and 3 if there is (naturally) a break
after 1, but in the second case:
  | … | … |
  | 1 | 2 |
  | 3 | 4 |
  | … | … |
I should impose \noBreak between 1–2 and 3–4.
This is completely different!  So I would need also to impose where to
break at the beginning of the passage, which could lead to "non optimal"
output in the first part of the score.

Anyway, I am a bit complaining but this is of course nitpicking.


Xavier Scheuer <address@hidden>

Attachment: horizontal-spacing-change-2.15.16.png
Description: PNG image

reply via email to

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