On 1/14/11 4:20 AM, "Joe Neeman" <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 14, 2011 at 11:57 AM, Carl Sorensen <[email protected]> wrote: >> On 1/13/11 10:25 PM, "Keith OHara" <[email protected]> wrote: >>>> Two accidentals remain tucked, but this case does not: >>>> ceses!4... feses! r16 >> >> So it seems that making this change affects a desired behavior (as described >> in a regtest). If, in your opinion, the output is better overall with the >> new behavior, we should probably do the following: >> >> 1) Have a discussion on -devel, with images shown before and after >> 2) Change something about the description of spacing-horizontal-skyline.ly >> <http://spacing-horizontal-skyline.ly> >> to indicate under which conditions tucking is *not* allowed. >> >> Otherwise, we'll need to figure out some other method of approaching this. > > I think you'll find that the regression was caused by ee0488, in which case > the extra-spacing-height override is exactly the thing to do if you want to > restore the old behaviour. It's really just a question of how much padding to > add; I don't think it's worth a long discussion. I agree in general, but the question is "do we *want* to restore the old behavior?" We have a regtest that demonstrates the new behavior. When we try to restore the old behavior in the case at hand, we also break one instance in the regtest. I guess that if we can find a value of extra-spacing-height that will restore the old behavior in the case at hand, and not break the regtest, it's the best of both worlds. Thanks, Carl _______________________________________________ bug-lilypond mailing list [email protected] http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-lilypond
