[Top][All Lists]

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

Re: Thriple flat/sharp glyphs...

From: Torsten Hämmerle
Subject: Re: Thriple flat/sharp glyphs...
Date: Thu, 15 Mar 2018 02:49:08 -0700 (MST)

Werner LEMBERG wrote
>> I just used \score inside a custom markup-command and set the size
>> by \layout { #(layout-set-staff-size design_size) }
>> It looks as if #(layout-set-staff-size) doesn't scale down all the
>> distances.
> I think this behaviour is correct – the idea is to have staves with
> different sizes aligned vertically.

The behaviour is correct for a score with mixed-size staves, I agree.
But the documentation uses #(layout-set-staff-size ...) directly in the
\layout block at the very end of the score. This suggests that the command
is meant for the whole score in this case.
But I'll take a closer look at this on occasion bevor filing a bug report.

Werner LEMBERG wrote
> There is still one thing that surprises me: The
> distances between accidentals and noteheads increase for smaller
> sizes.  Comparing, say, `feta13' with `feta26', you can see that the
> whitespace before accidentals increases at smaller sizes also.  I'm
> not sure that I really like this for all circumstances.
> [...]

In any case, this is actually standard LilyPond and has nothing to do with
our new accidental glyphs.
To demonstrate this (and the differences between design sizes Abraham and
myself have been referring to), I've set up a tiny example in a totally out
of the box LilyPond 2.19.81 in my Windows 10 installation:

It's driving me nuts that I don't seem to capable of showing different stave
sizes in one PDF without having strange spacing issues:

\version "2.19.81"

\layout { indent = 0 }

music = \relative c' { c8. ees16( fis8. a16 b8.) gis16 f8. d16 }

\markup \column {
  \score {
    \new Staff \with { \magnifyStaff #11/20 } \music
  \scale #'(11/20 . 11/20) \score {
    \new Staff \music


Next, I compared the output of \magnifyStaff to an "ordinary" file using
#(set-global-staff-size 11) using layout control features (all in the
2.19.81 Windows installation).
So the spacing issues you still have are really non-intentional and I'm
currently unsure how to obtain a realistic and natural spacing for the
design size comparisons. Bugger!


All the values shown may be scaled, ok, but you'd expect a factor of 0.55
(11/20), but no.
Probably some magstep rounding issues involved, but this cannot be the only

All the best,

All the best,

Sent from:

reply via email to

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