Re: What's with the spacing code?
David Kastrup writes: > I have to disagree with your assessment: the behavior of 12.3 made sense > under the constraints the code worked with. It was a result of its > design decisions. The result of 13.35 does not make sense. As you can > easily see by removing the markup, it is not a result of a generally > wider spacing decision. > > If you think different, how about the following: [...] It is particularly educational to look at the distances used in the last page. They don't particularly look like the general spacing is intended to be on the loose side. -- David Kastrup ___ bug-lilypond mailing list bug-lilypond@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-lilypond
Re: What's with the spacing code?
David Kastrup writes:
> David Kastrup writes:
>
>> I have to disagree with your assessment: the behavior of 12.3 made sense
>> under the constraints the code worked with. It was a result of its
>> design decisions. The result of 13.35 does not make sense. As you can
>> easily see by removing the markup, it is not a result of a generally
>> wider spacing decision.
>>
>> If you think different, how about the following:
>
> [...]
>
> It is particularly educational to look at the distances used in the last
> page. They don't particularly look like the general spacing is intended
> to be on the loose side.
Here a shorter recipe:
\score { \repeat unfold 480 { c'^\markup { \column { x y z } } } }
Again, compare the last page with the other pages.
--
David Kastrup
___
bug-lilypond mailing list
bug-lilypond@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-lilypond
Re: What's with the spacing code?
"Phil Holmes" wrote in message
news:i82aup$9b...@dough.gmane.org...
"David Kastrup" wrote in message
And if you really want to see some hot action, just write
\score { c }
as often as you want. Regardless of how much of those you put into the
file, the outcome will be just a single page.
This produces the same output in 2.12.3. I'll add it as a bug which is
not a regression.
http://code.google.com/p/lilypond/issues/detail?id=1286
--
Phil Holmes
Bug Squad
___
bug-lilypond mailing list
bug-lilypond@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-lilypond
Re: What's with the spacing code?
"David Kastrup" wrote in message
news:87r5gbns2g@lola.goethe.zz...
If you think different, how about the following:
test = { c'^\markup { \column { x y z } } }
\score { \repeat unfold 48 { \test } }
\score { \repeat unfold 48 { \test } }
[snip]
--
David Kastrup
Now that is impressive. As you'll see, I've raised the bug report anyway.
sig
|
v
--
Phil Holmes
Bug Squad
___
bug-lilypond mailing list
bug-lilypond@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-lilypond
Re: What's with the spacing code?
"Phil Holmes" wrote in message news:i82aup$9b...@dough.gmane.org... "David Kastrup" wrote in message All this is rather erratic. Agreed. I'll add the initial issue you raised to the tracker as a critical, even if it's the same as the other spacing problems, since I guess it'll serve as an excellent test pattern. http://code.google.com/p/lilypond/issues/detail?id=1285 -- Phil Holmes Bug Squad ___ bug-lilypond mailing list bug-lilypond@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-lilypond
Re: What's with the spacing code?
"Phil Holmes" writes:
> "David Kastrup" wrote in message
> news:87vd5nny58@lola.goethe.zz...
>> "Phil Holmes" writes:
>>
>> [Please don't write anything important below your signature, as mail
>> clients will cut this away on reply].
>
> Apologies. I have to cut and paste my sig to the bottom and I already
> had something ready to paste, so forgot.
>
>> If you think this is all fine, take out the markup from the example and
>> get a really _tight_ fit in contrast.
>
> Wasn't saying it was fine - just that it's not a regression between
> 13.34 and 13.35 - it's a change, but compared to 12.3, 13.34 was too
> tight. Using the test file you provided, 12.3 took 7 pages. .31 and
> .34 (and probably others - I don't have a full set) took 5.5 pages and
> leave no room for markup. .35 takes 10.5 pages and leaves too much
> room for markup.
I have to disagree with your assessment: the behavior of 12.3 made sense
under the constraints the code worked with. It was a result of its
design decisions. The result of 13.35 does not make sense. As you can
easily see by removing the markup, it is not a result of a generally
wider spacing decision.
If you think different, how about the following:
test = { c'^\markup { \column { x y z } } }
\score { \repeat unfold 48 { \test } }
\score { \repeat unfold 48 { \test } }
\score { \repeat unfold 48 { \test } }
\score { \repeat unfold 48 { \test } }
\score { \repeat unfold 48 { \test } }
\score { \repeat unfold 48 { \test } }
\score { \repeat unfold 48 { \test } }
\score { \repeat unfold 48 { \test } }
\score { \repeat unfold 48 { \test } }
\score { \repeat unfold 48 { \test } }
\score { \repeat unfold 48 { \test } }
\score { \repeat unfold 48 { \test } }
\score { \repeat unfold 48 { \test } }
\score { \repeat unfold 48 { \test } }
\score { \repeat unfold 48 { \test } }
\score { \repeat unfold 48 { \test } }
\score { \repeat unfold 48 { \test } }
\score { \repeat unfold 48 { \test } }
\score { \repeat unfold 48 { \test } }
\score { \repeat unfold 48 { \test } }
\score { \repeat unfold 48 { \test } }
\score { \repeat unfold 48 { \test } }
\score { \repeat unfold 48 { \test } }
\score { \repeat unfold 48 { \test } }
\score { \repeat unfold 48 { \test } }
\score { \repeat unfold 48 { \test } }
\score { \repeat unfold 48 { \test } }
\score { \repeat unfold 48 { \test } }
\score { \repeat unfold 48 { \test } }
\score { \repeat unfold 48 { \test } }
\score { \repeat unfold 48 { \test } }
\score { \repeat unfold 48 { \test } }
\score { \repeat unfold 48 { \test } }
\score { \repeat unfold 48 { \test } }
\score { \repeat unfold 48 { \test } }
\score { \repeat unfold 48 { \test } }
\score { \repeat unfold 48 { \test } }
\score { \repeat unfold 48 { \test } }
\score { \repeat unfold 48 { \test } }
\score { \repeat unfold 48 { \test } }
\score { \repeat unfold 48 { \test } }
\score { \repeat unfold 48 { \test } }
\score { \repeat unfold 48 { \test } }
\score { \repeat unfold 48 { \test } }
\score { \repeat unfold 48 { \test } }
\score { \repeat unfold 48 { \test } }
\score { \repeat unfold 48 { \test } }
\score { \repeat unfold 48 { \test } }
--
David Kastrup
___
bug-lilypond mailing list
bug-lilypond@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-lilypond
Re: What's with the spacing code?
"David Kastrup" wrote in message
news:87vd5nny58@lola.goethe.zz...
"Phil Holmes" writes:
[Please don't write anything important below your signature, as mail
clients will cut this away on reply].
Apologies. I have to cut and paste my sig to the bottom and I already had
something ready to paste, so forgot.
If you think this is all fine, take out the markup from the example and
get a really _tight_ fit in contrast.
Wasn't saying it was fine - just that it's not a regression between 13.34
and 13.35 - it's a change, but compared to 12.3, 13.34 was too tight. Using
the test file you provided, 12.3 took 7 pages. .31 and .34 (and probably
others - I don't have a full set) took 5.5 pages and leave no room for
markup. .35 takes 10.5 pages and leaves too much room for markup.
The current spacing is not a matter of "too tight" or "too loose". It
is a matter of "too unpredictable".
Agreed. There are currently 2 critical bugs outstanding against spacing
issues.
And if you really want to see some hot action, just write
\score { c }
as often as you want. Regardless of how much of those you put into the
file, the outcome will be just a single page.
This produces the same output in 2.12.3. I'll add it as a bug which is not
a regression.
All this is rather erratic.
Agreed. I'll add the initial issue you raised to the tracker as a critical,
even if it's the same as the other spacing problems, since I guess it'll
serve as an excellent test pattern.
--
Phil Holmes
Bug Squad
___
bug-lilypond mailing list
bug-lilypond@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-lilypond
Re: What's with the spacing code?
"Phil Holmes" writes:
[Please don't write anything important below your signature, as mail
clients will cut this away on reply].
If you think this is all fine, take out the markup from the example and
get a really _tight_ fit in contrast.
The current spacing is not a matter of "too tight" or "too loose". It
is a matter of "too unpredictable".
And if you really want to see some hot action, just write
\score { c }
as often as you want. Regardless of how much of those you put into the
file, the outcome will be just a single page.
All this is rather erratic.
--
David Kastrup
___
bug-lilypond mailing list
bug-lilypond@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-lilypond
Re: What's with the spacing code?
-- Phil Holmes Bug Squad "Graham Percival" wrote in message news:aanlktimeamkjghtqa6jljbwzkx1et41pf2zhi68bu...@mail.gmail.com... Woah, sorry, I didn't realize that by "current code", you mean "current git" instead of "2.13 in general". Yeah, this isn't good! Bug Squad: this is a Critical regression which occurred between 2.13.34 and 2.13.35. Cheers, - Graham The spacing for 13.34 was too tight if we compare with 12.3. It's now gone the other way. See attached PNGs. You still reckon this is critical regression? <><><>___ bug-lilypond mailing list bug-lilypond@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-lilypond
Re: What's with the spacing code?
Woah, sorry, I didn't realize that by "current code", you mean
"current git" instead of "2.13 in general". Yeah, this isn't good!
Bug Squad: this is a Critical regression which occurred between
2.13.34 and 2.13.35.
Cheers,
- Graham
On Thu, Sep 30, 2010 at 1:34 PM, David Kastrup wrote:
>
> Here is one example that gets rather spread out:
>
> test = { c'^\markup{!} }
> \score { \repeat unfold 48 { \test } }
> \score { \repeat unfold 48 { \test } }
> \score { \repeat unfold 48 { \test } }
> \score { \repeat unfold 48 { \test } }
> \score { \repeat unfold 48 { \test } }
> \score { \repeat unfold 48 { \test } }
> \score { \repeat unfold 48 { \test } }
> \score { \repeat unfold 48 { \test } }
> \score { \repeat unfold 48 { \test } }
> \score { \repeat unfold 48 { \test } }
> \score { \repeat unfold 48 { \test } }
> \score { \repeat unfold 48 { \test } }
> \score { \repeat unfold 48 { \test } }
> \score { \repeat unfold 48 { \test } }
> \score { \repeat unfold 48 { \test } }
> \score { \repeat unfold 48 { \test } }
> \score { \repeat unfold 48 { \test } }
> \score { \repeat unfold 48 { \test } }
> \score { \repeat unfold 48 { \test } }
> \score { \repeat unfold 48 { \test } }
> \score { \repeat unfold 48 { \test } }
> \score { \repeat unfold 48 { \test } }
> \score { \repeat unfold 48 { \test } }
> \score { \repeat unfold 48 { \test } }
> \score { \repeat unfold 48 { \test } }
> \score { \repeat unfold 48 { \test } }
> \score { \repeat unfold 48 { \test } }
> \score { \repeat unfold 48 { \test } }
> \score { \repeat unfold 48 { \test } }
> \score { \repeat unfold 48 { \test } }
> \score { \repeat unfold 48 { \test } }
> \score { \repeat unfold 48 { \test } }
> \score { \repeat unfold 48 { \test } }
> \score { \repeat unfold 48 { \test } }
> \score { \repeat unfold 48 { \test } }
> \score { \repeat unfold 48 { \test } }
> \score { \repeat unfold 48 { \test } }
> \score { \repeat unfold 48 { \test } }
> \score { \repeat unfold 48 { \test } }
> \score { \repeat unfold 48 { \test } }
> \score { \repeat unfold 48 { \test } }
> \score { \repeat unfold 48 { \test } }
> \score { \repeat unfold 48 { \test } }
> \score { \repeat unfold 48 { \test } }
> \score { \repeat unfold 48 { \test } }
> \score { \repeat unfold 48 { \test } }
> \score { \repeat unfold 48 { \test } }
> \score { \repeat unfold 48 { \test } }
>
>
> --
> David Kastrup
>
>
> ___
> lilypond-devel mailing list
> lilypond-de...@gnu.org
> http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
>
___
bug-lilypond mailing list
bug-lilypond@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-lilypond
