On 2011/11/25 05:01:39, mike_apollinemike.com wrote:
On Thu, 24 Nov 2011 19:16:46 +0000, mailto:k-ohara5...@oco.net wrote: > I like the direction of this change.
Does it actually work?
It used to. You should try your patches, occasionally. Take Carl's example from <http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/lilypond-devel/2011-11/msg00426.html> and replace his debugging \paper block with \paper{ annotate-spacing = ##t ragged-bottom = ##t} The good versions space this nicely on 4 pages. (Patch set 3 uses 35 pages.) http://codereview.appspot.com/5431065/diff/5003/lily/slur.cc File lily/slur.cc (right): http://codereview.appspot.com/5431065/diff/5003/lily/slur.cc#newcode101 lily/slur.cc:101: ret[downup] = minmax (downup, d[dir], ret[dir]); ?? ret.add_point(d[dir]); http://codereview.appspot.com/5431065/diff/5003/lily/slur.cc#newcode106 lily/slur.cc:106: extremal_heights[RIGHT] = d[dir]; extremal_heights[LEFT (Right)] holds the position of the slur-side end of the first (respectively, last) nonempty encompassed grob we found. http://codereview.appspot.com/5431065/diff/5003/lily/slur.cc#newcode113 lily/slur.cc:113: // we dampen the height approximation by the slur's likely slope But why bother? height_approximation is typically 0.3 staff-space, and always vertical even if the slur slopes? http://codereview.appspot.com/5431065/diff/5003/lily/slur.cc#newcode119 lily/slur.cc:119: 0.5 staff spaces from the note-head. Should this 0.5 have been free-height-distance all along? http://codereview.appspot.com/5431065/ _______________________________________________ lilypond-devel mailing list lilypond-devel@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
