>>What happens with your new code with overlapping, rather than
>>stacked notes? E.g. << 4. // 2. >> (untested).
>>
>>I think from previous test cases it may become difficult to
>>understand which dots behind to which notes. IIRC there's an
>>outstanding bug about horizontal positioning in this
The test case isn't ideal (maybe is better than , but I think
the dotted minim a needs an individual dot...
On 29 Oct 2016 20:21, "Carl Sorensen" wrote:
>
>
> On 10/29/16 3:29 AM, "Chris Yate" wrote:
> >
> >What happens with your new code with
On 10/29/16 3:29 AM, "Chris Yate" wrote:
>
>What happens with your new code with overlapping, rather than stacked
>notes? E.g. << 4. // 2. >> (untested).
>
>I think from previous test cases it may become difficult to understand
>which dots behind to which notes. IIRC
On 10/29/16 3:29 AM, "Chris Yate" wrote:
>On 29 Oct 2016 04:39, "Carl Sorensen" wrote:
>>
>> I have worked some more on the augmentation dot algorithms, including
>>adding the directions (/DotsUp, /DotsDown).
>>
>> I would like your opinion on whether
> I would like your opinion on whether the attached regression test,
> which is different from the current development regression tests, is
> correct. I think it is, but I'd like your opinions.
Thanks, it looks fine. However, I second Chris's concerns regarding
more complicated cases where you
On 29 Oct 2016 04:39, "Carl Sorensen" wrote:
>
> I have worked some more on the augmentation dot algorithms, including
adding the directions (/DotsUp, /DotsDown).
>
> I would like your opinion on whether the attached regression test, which
is different from the current
I have worked some more on the augmentation dot algorithms, including adding
the directions (/DotsUp, /DotsDown).
I would like your opinion on whether the attached regression test, which is
different from the current development regression tests, is correct. I think
it is, but I'd like your