On Tue, Apr 7, 2020 at 11:31 PM Aaron Hill <lilyp...@hillvisions.com> wrote:
> On 2020-04-07 1:55 pm, Paolo Prete wrote: > > Look at this example (again: messy code that could be improved, and I > > gently ask Harm and/or Aaron to have a check if they can): > > For starters, I would seek to eliminate the global variable, instead > preferring state to be tied to the context in some way. Using a custom > context property would enable this approach to support simultaneous > pedal markings on grouped staves. As it is now, such multiple usage > would corrupt the shared global. > Of course I agree. > > Alternately, this alignment work seems like a better job for an engraver > that (semi-)automatically determines which pedal markings need to be > vertically aligned with one another. This is exactly how pedal alignments in music engraving are commonly done. You manually choose a reference and then align pedals at its left or right automatically by grouping them. Then you manually decide to break alignment when you see that it could cause ugly holes and/or there is enough distance between pedals. I don't understand where and why the Dynamics context came from. I suspect it has been made, in the past, for an old fashioned style (not used in professional engraving, though) in which you put dynamics (and *not* pedals) on a fixed horizontal line between the two staves. Of course this leads to bad alignments as well as a huge redundancy of text (--> skips) which grows and grows. That said, > I could see value in adding a \pedalAlignBreak of some form, Yes, this is necessary too. > Side note: Your use of \partcombine seems unnecessary when << >> exists: > > Thanks. Best, P
