Re: Avoid excessive number of dots in chords (#3179). (issue 7319049)

[k-ohara5a5a]

LGTM.

We do lose the double-dot on  << f'4.. \\ f'2. >>
but can get it back with
 \once\override Staff.DotColumn #'chord-dots = ##f
(although this override looks like I am asking to remove dots on chords,
it actually gives me Dots for each dotted note-head).

On 2013/02/18 16:16:33, lemzwerg wrote:

https://codereview.appspot.com/7319049/diff/7001/lily/dot-column.cc#newcode206
> lily/dot-column.cc:206: p += (int) robust_scm2double
(dp.dot_->get_property
> ("staff-position"), 0.0);

> But the `desired position' is not what I need!  Following Gould, I
really need
> the extrema of the chord's note head positions, slightly extended at
the top and
> the bottom in case those notes are sitting on a line.

Well, Gould is showing the usual case, where notes have
Dots.staff-position = 0.  You were asking for opinions on the optimal
way to behave for users who override Dots.staff-position.  You could
generalize by using the requested Dots position 'p' (which is exactly
the NoteHead position in the simple case) in place of the note-head
position.

https://codereview.appspot.com/7319049/