On Tue, Jun 19, 2012 at 12:15 AM, Janek Warchoł <janek.lilyp...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Mon, Jun 18, 2012 at 6:29 PM, Joe Neeman <joenee...@gmail.com> wrote: >> The only difference is that I'm proposing >> to make it possible to define aligned_on_y_parent in scheme, given that >> aligned_on_parent is defined in C++. This part is basically what will allow >> us to avoid hard-coding a single name (like "core-extent") into the C++ >> code. > > What about giving more power to alignment properties? Currently > self-alignment-[XY] is quite limited - you cannot specify parent and > child alignment separately, you cannot specify which parent you want, > and the name is confusing (after all, when aligned-on-[xy]-parent is > used, parent's extent matters, too). > I hope to cook a draft demonstrating this tomorrow.
Here's the patch: http://codereview.appspot.com/6308093/ Please let me know what you think! cheers, Janek _______________________________________________ lilypond-devel mailing list lilypond-devel@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
