On 2019/03/10 17:08:33, Valentin Villenave wrote:
On 2019/03/10 13:37:42, thomasmorley651 wrote: > Oversights
Greetings Harm, looks good; much better than the hack I had previously suggested about
#1333.
However, you’re using a somewhat similar approach (although much more fine-tuned) by overriding the stencil rather than creating an
independent grob
for the slash; therefore some of the objections from Neil and Carl may
also
apply here: https://codereview.appspot.com/3169041/#msg5
I personally have no objection about it, though.
Cheers, V.
Hi Valentin, I considered creating a Slash-grob, but I think it would have been even more work. ;) Furthermore, if it would be up to me I'd do it in scheme. C++ would be better, I suppose, though C++ is out of my depth. Doing a stencil-override I feel much more to be in my league. Ofcourse beams in acciaccatura are now always slashed, as requested in #1333. This is a design-decision and ofcourse we have appoggiatura. I added a plethora of possibilities for customizations. If the settings of the slash and current Flag/Beam will cause bad output, a warning is done, with a hint what to do. It now deals nicely with changed fontsizes, as far as I can tell. So I'm pretty sure it (mostly) does what is promised. I wrote 'mostly' because there is a little inaccuracy. See one of the TODOs in slash-stencil. Any hint here would be great. I'm more concerned about the coding style. I do Flag and Beam in one go, would it be better to split it in a (cond (Flag ...)(Beam...) (else ...)) ? Btw, I stumbled over it while patching straight-flag. There is/was a function doing such slashes. It was a poor one, only for straight flags, and buggy as soon as unusual angles were provided for straight-flag. Though, straight flags are similar to beams in some regard. Thus the attempt to do all in one. https://codereview.appspot.com/562550043/ _______________________________________________ lilypond-devel mailing list lilypond-devel@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel