[Top][All Lists]

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

Re: Better pure heights for slurs (issue 5431065)

From: k-ohara5a5a
Subject: Re: Better pure heights for slurs (issue 5431065)
Date: Sat, 26 Nov 2011 01:42:33 +0000

On 2011/11/25 05:01:39, wrote:
On Thu, 24 Nov 2011 19:16:46 +0000, mailto:address@hidden wrote:
> I like the direction of this change.

Does it actually work?

It used to.  You should try your patches, occasionally.
Take Carl's example from
and replace his debugging \paper block with
 \paper{ annotate-spacing = ##t ragged-bottom = ##t}

The good versions space this nicely on 4 pages.  (Patch set 3 uses 35
File lily/ (right):
lily/ ret[downup] = minmax (downup, d[dir], ret[dir]);
?? ret.add_point(d[dir]);
lily/ extremal_heights[RIGHT] = d[dir];
extremal_heights[LEFT (Right)] holds the position of the slur-side end
of the first (respectively, last) nonempty encompassed grob we found.
lily/ // we dampen the height approximation by the slur's
likely slope
But why bother?  height_approximation is typically 0.3 staff-space, and
always vertical even if the slur slopes?
lily/ 0.5 staff spaces from the note-head.
Should this 0.5 have been free-height-distance all along?

reply via email to

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