Janek Warchoł <janek.lilyp...@gmail.com> writes: > 2013/11/29 David Kastrup <d...@gnu.org>: >> Maybe you should try making your bug reports not riddles. The main >> visible difference is that DrumStaff has a drum clef, so "Shouldn't >> these two yield identical results?" is very likely _not_ to focus the >> attention on where you want it. > > Well, in my opinion both differences were equally visible. > Nevermind. > >> For RhythmicStaff, the bar lines are explicitly designed to match those >> of a five-line staff. > > I see the override in ly/engraver-init.ly, and i tracked the code back > to its first appearance 12 years ago: > > commit 1539b48e9bd7cd7698e602dc3d3dbe74a6567a49 > Author: Han-Wen Nienhuys <han...@xs4all.nl> > Date: Sat Sep 8 20:11:09 2001 +0200 > > release: 1.5.9 > > but i haven't found any rationale _why_ rhythmic staff barlines should > be so long.
That likely predates any attempt to make the bar lines for 1- and 0-line staves visible at all. >> In contrast, DrumStaff has normal bar lines matching the system, and >> linecounts of 1 and smaller lead to the fallback of 3-line system >> dimensions. >> >> Personally, I find the RhythmicStaff bar lines a bit excessive. But >> changing them would be _quite_ an incompatible change. > > Hmm. I think we should change it. The default behaviour (i.e. > ensuring that the barline is at least 2 ss long) seems perfect to me. There is an orchestral example in Documentation/ly-examples.ly that makes heavy use of RhythmicStaff. You should probably take a look at the difference your change would make with that. -- David Kastrup _______________________________________________ bug-lilypond mailing list bug-lilypond@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-lilypond
