Dear Bug Squad This is the only unreported regression I know about. It change since 2.12.3, and although I did not get a huge response over on -user, we agree it got worse. I believe this tiny example captures what we did not like in the real music examples from that thread.
% Note spacing should not be affected by accidentals unless necessary.
% Here, spacing is tightened near accidentals
\version "2.13.43"
{
\repeat unfold 8 {f'8 bes' d'' f'' \noBreak }
\break
\repeat unfold 12 {f'8 bes' d'' f'' \noBreak }
}
------- Forwarded message -------
Date: Mon, 27 Sep 2010 21:30:03 +0100
From: Gerard McConnell <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: alpha test, horizontal spacing
To: [email protected]
I agree that in the examples you gave the accidentals look a lot better in
the 2.12 versions.
On Mon, Sep 27, 2010 at 7:56 PM, Keith E OHara <[email protected]> wrote:
Well, opinions change over time. It is a subtle thing, but I think the old naive spacing around accidentals makes an easier-to-read page. Here are two dense measures of Debussy that are a little difficult to space. Moving the notes over the clef-change is a good thing, of course. The stem-accidental collisions do not occur unless the beam crosses staffs, even if it is kneed, so they might be considered part of the cross-staff issues. The spacing of the first three 16ths is probably a cross-staff artifact as well. However, stems of cross-staff beams will always be special cases in collision resolution, so they can cross a long hairpin crescendo for example. So I suggest that keeping accidentals clear of other note columns might be wisest. More simply, in the last three 16th notes (demisemiquavers) in the first measure, I want the accidental to give me a bit of extra space for readability. I was able to create a small example showing a case where notes with an accidental in between were actually spaced closer together. (I imagined the new spacing engine getting a little too excited: "can I fit under the neighboring accidental? Yes! Oh boy lets slide these together!!") So I favor less aggressive tucking of noteheads under other noteheads and their attached accidentals, if that is an option. Other opinions? -- Keith
<<attachment: tucking.png>>
_______________________________________________ bug-lilypond mailing list [email protected] http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-lilypond
