On 25 mars 2013, at 07:10, k-ohara5...@oco.net wrote: > Thanks for taking the time to do this. No-one else knows enough of the > various stages of processing to bring all the pieces together. > > It looks like you try to use a common UP/DOWN direction for the portions > of a broken slur, and the image you posted to the bug-tracker showed a > common direction for each half of a broken slur, but the current patch > gives me inconsistent directions (in every case but especially line 3). >
I only use a common UP/DOWN if it is set by the user beforehand. Otherwise, it is calculated with the usual callbacks. > >> After some consideration, I consider the name \broken >> suboptimal since it implies two pieces. > > Conceptually, of course, there *are* two pieces. The other piece is > probably at the other end of the repeat. The automatic behavior is quite > good, so fortunately we will rarely need to look up whatever name the > committee approves for the command to make a broken slur. > It'd be a shame for this to get stuck in the pipes because we can't figure out a good name. I am indifferent and I don't mind \broken or whatever really. > > https://codereview.appspot.com/7424049/diff/65002/input/regression/repeat-slur.ly > File input/regression/repeat-slur.ly (right): > > https://codereview.appspot.com/7424049/diff/65002/input/regression/repeat-slur.ly#newcode2 > input/regression/repeat-slur.ly:2: > Please do just one manual review of the regression suite between > versions before adding another test of this length. > What do you mean here? Thanks for the review! Cheers, MS > https://codereview.appspot.com/7424049/ _______________________________________________ lilypond-devel mailing list lilypond-devel@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel