On 2011/06/04 17:32:15, joeneeman wrote:
> When compressing, unstretchable springs never get put on the > active list, since their blocking_force is 0.
It seems, though, that unstretchable but compressible springs should be on the active list when compressing.
They are. They have blocking_force -1.0 (compressive) without any special treatment, and I had forgotten about them when I wrote above.
What about +inf?
I like that concept, but... The starting condition for simple-spacer is to pull until all springs unblock, which could then require +inf force, and then the watchdog in length() accuses me of "cruelty to springs". I thought about going inf-robust, and retiring that watchdog, but it looks like that would complicate Simple_spacer::compress(). http://codereview.appspot.com/4517136/ _______________________________________________ lilypond-devel mailing list lilypond-devel@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
