Re: Default tie placement, tie not visible
Thanks for the report. I believe this issue is the same as
http://code.google.com/p/lilypond/issues/detail?id=14
Could you look at the discussion for this issue?
Cheers,
- Graham
Steve D wrote:
LilyPond 2.11.13, Linux
Notes
-
Expected result: visible tie between the C's (top note) of the second
and third chords (the first two chords of the second measure).
Actual result: tie exists (if chords were spaced farther apart
horizontally it would be seen) but is not visible by default. The tie
extends from just right of the 8th-note flag of the second chord to just
preceding the flat symbol of the third chord (the flat symbol of the
aes), instead of arcing over the flat symbol and ending at the notehead
it should tie to.
.ly example
---
% default tie placement between second and third C too brief to be visible
\version "2.11.13"
\paper { ragged-right = ##t indent = 0 }
\relative c' {
r2.. 8~ | ~ 4 r8 r2 |
}
___
bug-lilypond mailing list
bug-lilypond@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-lilypond
___
bug-lilypond mailing list
bug-lilypond@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-lilypond
Re: Default tie placement, tie not visible
On Thu, Jan 25, 2007 at 04:49:40PM -0800, Graham Percival wrote: > Thanks for the report. I believe this issue is the same as > http://code.google.com/p/lilypond/issues/detail?id=14 > > Could you look at the discussion for this issue? > > Cheers, > - Graham I'm not sure if it's the same issue Graham, although I suppose it may be. I'm not nearly familiar enough with the technical details of LilyPond to give a relevant comment, but it seems to me that the issue I mentioned is one in which a tie that is intended to extend to a notehead instead stops short to avoid a collision with a flat-symbol attached to another note of the chord. It seems that ideally the tie should arc *over* the flat symbol in order to extend to the notehead that is being tied to a previous note, rather than stopping to avoid a collision with the stem of a flat-symbol that is associated with another (distinct and incidentally non-tied) note. :-) Steve -- Politics is the stomping ground where personal ambition and greed parade around as altruistic service. -Eli Khamarov ___ bug-lilypond mailing list bug-lilypond@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-lilypond
Re: Default tie placement, tie not visible
On Thu, Jan 25, 2007 at 07:13:20PM -0700, Steve D wrote: > It seems that ideally the tie should arc *over* the flat symbol in order > to extend to the notehead that is being tied Addendum-- In other words, even if the tie had a greater minimum-length (which seems to be the subject of the bug/issue Graham mentioned), it seems like the tie should not be stopped by the flat symbol of another note, but should arc over the flat symbol. However, having just writting that, I can now imagine other circumstances, when the tied note is *not* the top note of the chord for instance, when it would probably seem more logical and look better for the tie to avoid collision with a flat symbol by stopping short of the flat and not extending to the notehead, rather than arcing over the flat to the notehead. So I guess it is a very complicated issue. -Steve -- Life is full of answers, if you don't care what the questions are. ___ bug-lilypond mailing list bug-lilypond@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-lilypond
Re: Default tie placement, tie not visible
Steve D wrote: On Thu, Jan 25, 2007 at 07:13:20PM -0700, Steve D wrote: It seems that ideally the tie should arc *over* the flat symbol in order to extend to the notehead that is being tied Ah, I see. I misunderstood. Addendum-- In other words, even if the tie had a greater minimum-length (which seems to be the subject of the bug/issue Graham mentioned), it seems like the tie should not be stopped by the flat symbol of another note, but should arc over the flat symbol. However, having just writting that, I can now imagine other circumstances, when the tied note is *not* the top note of the chord for instance, when it would probably seem more logical and look better for the tie to avoid collision with a flat symbol by stopping short of the flat and not extending to the notehead, rather than arcing over the flat to the notehead. So I guess it is a very complicated issue. Yes. If you want to add a feature request to the tracker, please (re-)send a minimally small example with some text explaining the issue. This issue would have much lower priority than the bugs, though. Cheers, - Graham ___ bug-lilypond mailing list bug-lilypond@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-lilypond
Re: Default tie placement, tie not visible
On Tue, Jan 30, 2007 at 04:20:53PM -0800, Graham Percival wrote: > >On Thu, Jan 25, 2007 at 07:13:20PM -0700, Steve D wrote: > >>It seems that ideally the tie should arc *over* the flat symbol in order > >>to extend to the notehead that is being tied > > [...] If you want to add a feature request to the tracker, please > (re-)send a minimally small example with some text explaining the issue. >This issue would have much lower priority than the bugs, though. - From my point of view, the bug, if there is a bug besides the fact that the tie is not visible because it is so short, is that the tie stops short of an accidental symbol that is *not* associated with the note being tied, and in addition, that note happens to be the top (or bottom) note of a chord. It seems to me that, ideally, when either the top or bottom note of a chord is tied, the tie should extend from notehead to notehead, or from the first notehead to an accidental (if there is one) preceding the second notehead, *if* and only if that accidental belongs to the note being tied instead of another note in close proximity (another note that is perhaps an interval of a second or third from the note being tied). Otherwise, if it is a top or bottom note of a chord, the tie should (again, merely from my current perspective) arc over (or under) the accidental symbol of another note in order to nearly connect to the notehead of the note that is being tied. (if that makes any sense) :-) I can imagine cases where the current behavior of LilyPond (2.11.13 in this case) would seem appropriate, *if* the tie is between two notes that are *not* at the top or bottom of a chord. Best wishes, Steve ___ bug-lilypond mailing list bug-lilypond@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-lilypond
