On 2017/04/29 00:36:36, david.nalesnik wrote:
On 2017/04/28 22:49:25, thomasmorley651 wrote:
> So I'd vote for keeping extra-offset as in your last patch-set. > Although I'm aware David K's point is important, I think a user
doing manual
> positioning, is responsible to deal with possible problems
(collisions), too.
X-offset and Y-offset don't check for collisions. You can put systems
on top of
each other, and move them right off the page. (That's another
attraction of
"extra-offset" for a name--there are plenty of warnings about
potential
collisions.)
When in doubt, let's not invent new interfaces. The standard for changes done _after_ spacing is resolved is extra-offset . Even when just one of the extras is non-zero and making the other non-zero is of very little usefulness. I was merely musing over whether there was any way to make it more useful, but then in keeping with the general semantics used elsewhere, we should likely rather focus on making X-offset do shifts before distance calculations and let extra-offset work afterwards, useful or not. https://codereview.appspot.com/324810043/ _______________________________________________ lilypond-devel mailing list lilypond-devel@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel