Werner LEMBERG <w...@gnu.org> writes: >>> Frankly, I don't see the point in simulating well-craftedness by >>> artificially introducing minor deficiencies associated with some of >>> the better work. >> >> @Werner: i could live with an *option* doing this, but i doubt that >> people are interested in writing it. And i think we have much, >> much, much more important stuff to work on. > > I think I was still unclear, since you both missed my point. The > engraver's main deficiencies IMHO were imprecise positioning of the > stamped beams. But using stamps instead of hand-cutting such small > slurs and ties was an *intentional* decision.
Sure. As is using printing letters instead of hand-made calligraphy. It makes for a consistent stencil quality. But we don't have stencil quality problems. Your argument may be that it somehow helps if identical meaning is conveyed by identical shapes. But if that were actually the case, we would not need optical correction. In fact, the most common _deficiency_ of computer music typesetting is that the computer overuses mathematically "correct" identical shapes and placements. > Lilypond already does a good job, as the attached image shows, but > there might be cases where this isn't so, and adding some discreteness > might improve the visual results. I fully agree that this isn't > important at all currently. > > BTW, restricting lilypond to discrete tie and slur shapes below a > given threshold should actually simplify the layout process since the > number of positioning choices gets reduced. Calculating a shape does not even involve a run-time _choice_ (choices are, in my opinion, discrete), so no, this does not simplify things. -- David Kastrup _______________________________________________ lilypond-devel mailing list lilypond-devel@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel