Keith OHara <[email protected]> writes: > David Kastrup <dak <at> gnu.org> writes: > >> Keith OHara <k-ohara5a5a <at> oco.net> writes: >> > >> > One can reverse the change, but possibly re-introduce issue 732, with : >> > >> > scm/markup.scm >> > @@ -72,3 +72,3 @@ Example: >> > (head (car stencils)) >> > - (xoff (+ space (interval-length (ly:stencil-extent head > X))))) >> > + (xoff (+ space (interval-end (ly:stencil-extent head X))))) >> > (ly:stencil-add head >> >> Can you? I fail to get something like >> >> \markup { x x x \hspace #-15 x x x } >> >> to work, > > Yes, I can. If I make the change I indicated, then your example > backspaces, and part (not all) of the complaint that started issue 732 > returns.
Ah, my problem was that I actually calculated the interval length (bypassing negative distances I expected to see here), and \hspace special-cases negative distances by placing _both_ stencil bounds to the left. That makes it impervious to the "empty interval" problem, but results in data that is marvelously inconsistent, with a total length of 0. At any rate, I think I know slightly more about stencils since my "LGTM" and venture a guess that the original "fix" was a bad idea. It does not seem to move to a useful place when the original stencil has a negative left border. -- David Kastrup _______________________________________________ bug-lilypond mailing list [email protected] https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-lilypond
