LGTM On Thu, Aug 4, 2011 at 9:20 PM, <mts...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Instead of defining the middle of curve in terms of curve length, I use > a constant number here. It seems to do the trick better than a variable > length. 8fdea86edb73b0a1fb4829e0a4fcf39932828a8f..083fc5935df3b626ea9a13a7207354f8497a13a2 > 100644 > --- a/lily/slur-configuration.cc > +++ b/lily/slur-configuration.cc > @@ -95,7 +95,10 @@ fit_factor (Offset dz_unit, Offset dz_perp, > Real eps = 0.01; > Interval pext = eps * Interval (-1, 1) + p[X_AXIS]; > pext.intersect (curve_xext); > - if (pext.is_empty () || pext.length () <= 1.999 * eps) > + if ((pext.is_empty () > + || pext.length () <= 1.999 * eps > + || (p[X_AXIS] - curve_xext[LEFT]) < 2.5 > + || (curve_xext[RIGHT] - p[X_AXIS]) < 2.5)) Basic logic seems sane. You may adopt a todo to make the 2.5 parameterized; whether or not the point is 'far' from the edge depends on the shape and length of the curve, so it could theoretically be calculated from a scale-free parameter. Two requests: * add a bool close_to_edge to make the condition easier to read. * add a parameter rather than hardcoding. I know we have too many parameters, but given that this uses an arbitrary number 2.5, it's better to have that number together with other numbers. -- Han-Wen Nienhuys - han...@xs4all.nl - http://www.xs4all.nl/~hanwen _______________________________________________ lilypond-devel mailing list lilypond-devel@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
