lilypond-user
[Top][All Lists]
Advanced

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

Re: brittenPhrygolydian


From: Thomas Morley
Subject: Re: brittenPhrygolydian
Date: Wed, 18 Jan 2017 23:51:19 +0100

2017-01-18 23:00 GMT+01:00 Noeck <address@hidden>:
> Wouldn't it be an improvement if there was a default padding larger than
> 0? Of course, the best option would be some type of kerning which works
> between all possible combinations. But something like 0.2 staff spaces
> between all accidentals would probably look better than no space at all.
> I don't know if that's possible.
>
> — Joram



I disagree.
The default of zero is perfectly fine for all predefined scales, imho.

A default of even 0.2 would look not tight enough:

sz = 0.2
keyPadding = {
  \override Staff.KeySignature.padding = \sz
  \override Staff.KeyCancellation.padding = \sz
}
mus = { \key cis \major cis''1 \key ces \major ces'' }

{ \keyPadding \mus }
\mus

Furthermore, collisions only happen for non-default scales, which then
could be adjusted via 'padding or 'padding-pairs for the KeySignature.
Both are unset per default, which is the right thing.

Non-default scales are always user defined. How could we predict them?
P.e. some FLAT/SHARP-combinations will collide others not...

So the user has to take care of it.
Our responsibility should aim at explaining how to do it in an
understandable manner.

Admittedly the doc-string for 'padding-pairs doesn't seem to fullfill that...

Cheers,
  Harm



reply via email to

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