On Sat, 2017-07-15 at 08:51 +0100, Richard Shann wrote: > On Sat, 2017-07-15 at 00:40 -0700, thomasmorle...@gmail.com wrote: > > On 2017/07/15 07:25:37, richard_rshann.plus.com wrote: > > > On Sat, 2017-07-15 at 00:09 -0700, mailto:thomasmorle...@gmail.com > > wrote: > > > > I'm afraid this patch does not fix the problem as wished. > > > > > You give an example of multiple bass figures on a note, I'm not > sure > > > what you would wish to see for that case, > > > > In > > << > > \relative c' { c1 c1 } > > \figures { <6+>2 <6+>2 <6+>1 } > > > > I would expect same aligning for first and second BassFigure related > to > > the note. > (understood: first and second *group* of bass figures) > > That would be ok, although when you have multiple figures on a note > allowing a bit more space for them can be good sometimes. You could > always move the whole group along by inserting a short duration note > with no figure in the bass figures if there was a particular case > where > this seemed obtrusive (hacky of course). > > So I think you could validly object that you didn't like them being > treated differently. Ha! I think I was being over-generous to your case here :) consider
<< \relative c' { c1 c2 } \figures { <_+>2 <6+>2 <_+>4 <4>4} >> In the current LilyPond the two groups of figures are aligned differently. So, my patch constitutes an improvement to the current situation, even though it doesn't fix this case, (which, as I said, is not really a worry - it's quite difficult to spot). Richard _______________________________________________ lilypond-devel mailing list lilypond-devel@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel