Thanks for looking into this further! > *Measure::minWidth1()* and *Measure::minWidth2()* do not take any cautionary > / courtesy element at the end of the system into account to compute the > measure width; nor should they, as these functions are agnostic about the > context the measure is in.
Agreed. If they happen to already contain the element, they should include it in the calculation, but it shouldn't be manufactured here. However, see below. > Also *Score::layoutSystem()* does not look for courtesy elements: it only > accumulates measure bare widths against the total system width. Courtesy > elements are added afterwards by *Score::layoutSystemRow()*, once > *Score::layoutSystem()* returns. At this point, the measures belonging to > the systems are defined and *Score::layoutSystemRow()* 'squeezes' courtesy > elements in, without noticing this exceeds the system width. That's exactly what that example looks like to me, thanks for confirming! > I see two possible strategies: > > 1) *Score::layoutSystem()* checks for potential courtesy elements before > adding another measure to the system. > > 2) *Score::layoutSystemRow()* checks for available room before adding the > courtesy elements it sees needed and removes the last system measure if they > do not fit. I don't know much about how layout works on this "high" level - I've been more concerned with finer details. My gut feel is that #1 makes more sense, because if layoutSystemRow(0 decides it needs to remove a measure from a system, it is going to need to call layoutSystem() again on every system from then on, and this process could potentially go on and on. I think I'd rather layoutSystem get the calculation "right" the first time - even if that means being a bit conservative. Not sure it would, but I'd be willing to live with it. For example, it appears to me that layoutSystem() is currently unaware of the possible need to add courtesy signatures beyond whatever might already have been been generated as part of a measure. I guess this also means it might initially overestimate the size of a measure if it turns out the previously-generated courtesy element is no longer needed? If so, maybe there could an additional parameter passed to minWidth() and/or minWidth2() to tell it to ignore courtesy elements, and this could be used for the initial calls to those functions. But I am also a little concerned about adding a lot of complex courtesy-signature-handling code to layoutSystem that would be essentially duplicated in layoutSystemRow - plenty of chances for these calculations to be out of sync. Perhaps it would be possible to refactor that somehow. Anyhow, if people think this is on the right track, or have better ideas they can explain, I'm willing to give it a shot. I should mention that school started for me yesterday, so I do need to be a bit more careful about what I take on. Which is to say, I'd be more than happy to see someone else tackle this. But this kind of thing has long bothered me and it would definitely be worth it to me to try to take care of it. Marc ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Slashdot TV. Video for Nerds. Stuff that matters. http://tv.slashdot.org/ _______________________________________________ Mscore-developer mailing list Mscore-developer@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/mscore-developer
