Hi,
On Mon, Jan 29, 2018 at 6:10 PM, David Kastrup <d...@gnu.org> wrote:
> David Kastrup <d...@gnu.org> writes:
>
>>> %% no fail
>>> \override TupletNumber.Y-offset =
>>> #(ly:make-unpure-pure-container
>>> (lambda (grob) (+ (ly:tuplet-number::calc-y-offset grob) 1))
>>> (lambda (grob start end) 1))
>>> \tuplet 3/2 4 {
>>> c,,8 d e f g a b c d e f g
>>> c,,8^> d e f^> g a b^> c d e^> f g }
>>> }
>>
>> Ok, this means that at pure time, ly:tuplet-number::calc-y-offset must
>> not be called at all or it will ride roughshod over the X offset. We'll
>> get the hang of it yet.
>
> At any rate, one point of grob-transformer is that it should work for
> any kind of value/callback, and it clearly doesn't here. So either the
> theory underlying it is wrong, or the implementation.
>
I don't have time to look into the details at the moment, just to go
by my memory, having worked on TupletNumber's interaction with kneed
beams. The callbacks for X-offset and Y-offset are not independent.
I forget which callback calls the other. The rationale for this
yuckiness was tuplet number/accidental collision avoidance, for which
both axes are necessary,
I don't know whether this entanglement is the culprit, but I have my
strong suspicions...
David
_______________________________________________
lilypond-devel mailing list
lilypond-devel@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
