On 2020/02/25 13:06:31, Be-3 wrote: > On 2020/02/24 06:44:39, hanwenn wrote: > > One thing to consider: since the mechanics are now very predictable, maybe we > > can name the property in after its mechanics? ie. french-correction -> > > stem-end-shorten or something? > > After having thought about it for quite a while I'm not too happy with > "stem-end-shorten", for the following reasons: > > The term "end" does not carry any information, because stems can only be > shortened at their end, as their starting point is nailed to a notehead. ;)
TabStaff and some rhythmic stems aren't. > There already are stem-shortenish properties in standard stem processing > (beamed-stem-shorten and stem-shorten). > > Most importantly, the french-correction property is different from all the other > shortenish propertie in so far as all of them will heavily influence the layout > (affecting overall positioning), but "french-correction" is the only property > that will shorten the stem for printing only, leaving all positioning aspects > untouched. Then stem-extra-shortening would be the analog to the extra-offset property that works after positioning. > Therefore, I'll very much like to have it called something with "french" in it > to emphasize the special role it plays in French beaming (and really *nowhere* > else). > > Would "french-shorten" be a viable compromise? > > Thanks for looking into this, > Torsten It seems weird to give an explicit value here rather than a flag, as the effect should likely apply regardless of how you scale beams and their thicknesses up and down. There is no better way to fudge this value/calculation in less conspicuously? Like using grob::offset-function or one of its cousins/equivalents from lily/grob-closure.cc ? https://codereview.appspot.com/557500043/
