Janek Warchoł <janek.lilyp...@gmail.com> writes: > 2014-08-28 1:40 GMT+02:00 Kieren MacMillan <kieren_macmil...@sympatico.ca>: >> Hi all, >> >>>> I think that issue 3518 (pushed recently) does just this: >>>> https://code.google.com/p/lilypond/issues/detail?id=3518 >>> >>> It doesn't do the automatic "AI nightmare" part. >> >> Yes, unfortunately... > > Yes, sorry - i should've trimmed quoted email better. > >>> However, it provides the low level machinery for pulling in the >>> "maximally required" number >>> of staves between automatic or manual line breaks, where the requirement >>> is determined by working with keep-alive-interfaces and tags on the >>> various staff variants. >> >> That could be helpful! >> >> I still need to wrap my head around how this framework/machinery >> works (or doesn’t) with >> true content-presentation separation; the example on the Google Code >> page has multiple >> "\context Staff” calls buried in the \violins note definition, which >> to my mind mixes content >> with presentation in an unfortunate way. > > I think you looked at an earlier work-in-progress snippet - in the > attachment you can find the "final" version.
Which is still oversimplified: this is a regtest possibly pretending to be too much. The main problem with the regtest is that it typesets everything in two versions whereas a "proper" version should replace the single-staff variant with skips while the double-staff variant is known to win: it's not just saving unnecessary processing time, but there is no point in letting the larger horizontal space requirements of the single-staff variant determine line breaks in passages where the single-staff variant is known to be irrelevant. That's why I pointed to the different unisono/divisi issue's attachment which does a more thorough job. -- David Kastrup _______________________________________________ lilypond-devel mailing list lilypond-devel@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel