2014-02-17 18:54 GMT+01:00 <k-ohara5...@oco.net>: > Forgot to move one magic number in the reorganization. > > The behavior of the line-breaker is strange in the presence of > zero-stretchable lines; maybe the enforcement of minimum stretchability > should go there instead. > > > https://codereview.appspot.com/36830045/diff/120001/lily/note-spacing.cc > File lily/note-spacing.cc (left): > > https://codereview.appspot.com/36830045/diff/120001/lily/note-spacing.cc#oldcode114 > lily/note-spacing.cc:114: ret.set_inverse_stretch_strength (max (0.1, > base_space - increment)); > Line-spacing depended on non-zero stretchability, so either line-spacing > needs an update, or this 0.1 needs to be preserved. > > https://codereview.appspot.com/36830045/diff/120001/lily/spacing-basic.cc > File lily/spacing-basic.cc (right): > > https://codereview.appspot.com/36830045/diff/120001/lily/spacing-basic.cc#newcode160 > lily/spacing-basic.cc:160: ret.set_inverse_stretch_strength (fraction * > max (0.0, (len - min))); > A global minimum stretchability would go here.
>From what i see the patch for issue 3868 does exactly this, so i think this can be considered done. thanks! Janek _______________________________________________ lilypond-devel mailing list lilypond-devel@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
