Of course this is two commits.
I do not know of any reason to distinguish the concept of 'cross-staff'
from your new
height_depends_on_grobs_from_another_vertical_
axis_group()
In most cases, 'cross-staff' means exactly that the height (Y-extent)
depends on staff-spacing.
Could you mark th
On 2013/08/15 05:35:49, Keith wrote:
In most cases, 'cross-staff' means exactly that the height (Y-extent)
depends on
staff-spacing.
Oh. It is the ottava bracket from the example for issue 3385 that is
not cross-staff,
but whose positioning references a cross-staff beam.
But if we change t
On 15 août 2013, at 08:35, k-ohara5...@oco.net wrote:
> Of course this is two commits.
>
probably three (axis-group-interface.cc and two independent changes in
side-position-interface.cc).
> I do not know of any reason to distinguish the concept of 'cross-staff'
> from your new
> height_depend
On 15 août 2013, at 08:51, k-ohara5...@oco.net wrote:
> On 2013/08/15 05:35:49, Keith wrote:
>
>> In most cases, 'cross-staff' means exactly that the height (Y-extent)
> depends on
>> staff-spacing.
>
> Oh. It is the ottava bracket from the example for issue 3385 that is
> not cross-staff,
> b
On 2013/08/15 05:51:36, mike7 wrote:
On 15 août 2013, at 08:35, mailto:k-ohara5...@oco.net wrote:
> Could you mark the relevant object as 'cross-staff' when the
cross-staff
> item is added to it 'support', rather than search through its
support
> later?
see above: this would mean that o
> If the spanners have never successfully responded to the position of
> cross-staff support, we should just skip cross-staff items from the
> support.
>
This is a great idea, but I'm not sure the best way to implement it.
It's not possible at the engraver stage when the grobs are originally
p
On 15 août 2013, at 09:03, k-ohara5...@oco.net wrote:
> On 2013/08/15 05:51:36, mike7 wrote:
>> On 15 août 2013, at 08:35, mailto:k-ohara5...@oco.net wrote:
>
>> > Could you mark the relevant object as 'cross-staff' when the
> cross-staff
>> > item is added to it 'support', rather than search th
On 2013/08/15 06:12:15, mike7 wrote:
On 15 août 2013, at 09:03, mailto:k-ohara5...@oco.net wrote:
> Well, the thing we did not want was to have ottava brackets ignored
for
> staff-spacing.
> The bracket overlaps the next staff the same way,
Ok, so, the bracket is ignoring the cross-staff ste
On 2013/08/15 06:12:28, Keith wrote:
If the code has not succeeded in considering cross-staff support, skip
them up
above
if (!me->"cross_staff" || e-> "cross-staff" ) continue;
I meant this to be an .AND.
if (!me->"cross_staff" && e->"cross-staff" ) continue;
https://codereview.appspot.c
