On Sat, Dec 31, 2016 at 12:46 PM, David Nalesnik <david.nales...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Sat, Dec 31, 2016 at 11:27 AM, David Nalesnik > <david.nales...@gmail.com> wrote: >> On Sat, Dec 31, 2016 at 11:20 AM, David Nalesnik >> <david.nales...@gmail.com> wrote: >>> Hmmm.... >>> >>> I'm having misgivings about the idea of fixed space between symbols. >>> >>> Looking at several Breitkopf & Härtel parts, I see rests spaced to >>> fill available space. Though, because spacing is compact, we never >>> see the awful behavior Jan-Peter's example reveals. >>> >>> http://imslp.org/wiki/Symphony_No.2,_Op.73_(Brahms,_Johannes)#Parts >>> http://imslp.org/wiki/Symphony_No.1,_Op.21_(Beethoven,_Ludwig_van)#Parts >>> >>> Instead of having fixed spacing between symbols, would it be better to >>> have a limit on how much a rest can be stretched? This would be >>> expressed in staff-spaces (like the current minimum which is >>> hard-coded as 1 staff-space). >>>
The patch has been put on a second countdown period. I'm considering that LilyPond's behavior is in fact correct, and that the overly spread symbols is simply an issue with spacing that is too loose -- in short, an issue that rests with the user. If it's desired, I could retool the patch to enforce a maximum; however, it may be best to withdraw the patch entirely. Does someone who sees a lot of parts have an opinion? The examples I've seen have very economical spacing, and rests are allowed to spread to fill the allotted space. Best, David _______________________________________________ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
