2011/1/15 Trevor Daniels <[email protected]> > > Jan Warchoł wrote Saturday, January 15, 2011 9:21 AM > > > > 2011/1/14 Keith OHara <[email protected]>: > >> The extra-spacing-height seems to do just the right thing. True, it gives > >> no extra space when the interval is larger {c be be f } but neither did > >> 2.12.3 and I think we don't need it there. > > > > No, in my opinion it's really bad! > > I mean, this > > > > \version "2.13.45" > > { > > \override Accidental #'extra-spacing-height = #'(-0.5 . 0.5) > > \repeat unfold 12 {f'8 bes' d'' f'' \noBreak } > > } > > > > looks to my eye worse than this: > > > >\version "2.13.45" > > { > > \repeat unfold 12 {f'8 bes' d'' f'' \noBreak } > > } > > > > I'd say that the optimal layout would be somewhere in between. > > I agree somewhere inbeween would be optimal. Perhaps something > like this (the override is just a frig to demonstrate my > preferred positioning, not a solution, of course): > > { > \repeat unfold 6 { > \once \override NoteHead #'X-extent = #'(0 . 1.8) > f'8 bes' d'' f'' \noBreak > f'8 bes' d'' f'' \noBreak > } > }
I'd go for as small as NoteHead #'X-extent = #'(0 . 1.5) . > I realise this is not possible to achieve without > getting into the spacing code, though. And this is > taking it beyond solving the regression, so it > should be a separate issue for 2.15. +1 Janek _______________________________________________ bug-lilypond mailing list [email protected] http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-lilypond
