[Top][All Lists]

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

Re: Fixes slope errors from incorrect X extents in Beam::print. (issue 5

From: Keith OHara
Subject: Re: Fixes slope errors from incorrect X extents in Beam::print. (issue 5293060)
Date: Tue, 01 Nov 2011 11:59:24 -0700
User-agent: Opera Mail/11.52 (Win32)

On Tue, 01 Nov 2011 04:41:22 -0700, address@hidden <address@hidden> wrote:

Where is this advertising?  Is it the word prolongation?

Yes. When a beam grob is passed to a function called prolongation people will 
at first think the function lengthens the beam.

To make things more consistent, I could call the functions individual-breaking, 
strict-breaking, and peters-breaking.

Do these functions break the beam?

I thought they placed the beam, or a part of a broken beam, with different 
methods like place-individually  align-with-broken-parts  

The boolean really means, if 'me' is a segment of a broken beam, then
beam 'me' together with my fellow broken-intos.
Maybe the boolean should be align-broken-segments or something.

Not necessarily - in peters-prolongation, this is set to false for one of the 
quants even though we are doing broken beaming (to find the quants of the 
individual beam).

That's kind of what confused me.  In a case where the upper-level scheme code 
is trying to make beam slopes consistent, but not necessarily continuous in 
height, you tell the lower-level code consistent_broken_slope=0.  I see how it 
works, but I would have seen it sooner if the variable name were beelzebub.

My problem is that the boolean consistent_broken_slope doesn't control whether 
things are consistent, and affects height in addition to slope.  It works at 
the detailed level, when quanting a (part of a) beam, choosing whether to align 
him with his fellow broken-intos.  So I renamed it in my mind as 

I like do_initial_slope_calculations_ because I think it reads cleaner in the 
That boolean name is fine. My comment was still talking about the interface to 
lily/ if (do_initial_slope_calculations_)
Even if we made an earlier pass, and avoid the collisions and/or made a
pretty knee, the averaging in peters-prolungation messed up the results
so we would have to do it again.

Should I add this as a comment?

Well, my statement was one of confusion, because I say we /would/ need to look 
harder for good positions, but the code says we do not look in this case.
A non-confused comment would help.
Does this have something to do with X-extents, or Beam::print, or broken

Yes - because this used to yield two equal quants, the regtests were changing 
with my new code even though the values of the quants didn't.  The fact that 
they fell on correct quants before is pure luck (the correct quant was the 
first in the pack).  This allows kneed beams to attain the correct values of 
the old regtests.

That must have been surprising.  Sounds like a pre-commit independent of the 
main commit

reply via email to

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