Graham Percival wrote:
I believe you are mistaken. The space that lilypond creates in the
first line is appropriate; if the text occurred beneath the sixteenth
notes, any less space would result in a collision. LilyPond calculates
this space based on drawing a box around the whole system.
In the second line, there is no collision. If you zoom in, you can see
a space.
You may be technically correct about what is or is not a collision
(according to Lilypond's definition, anyway), but to my eye, the first
line looks like nowhere near a collision, and the second line looks very
much like a collision (until I zoom in). Perhaps the revised example at
the end of this message demonstrates this more clearly.
As for traditional engraving practice, in my experience, it would be very
unusual for a professionally engraved score to allow as much vertical
space as Lilypond does in the first line, or as little in the second.
Examples abound of published scores which would disregard the collision
which I say Lilypond "imagines" in the first line -- that is, where the
vertical spacing is considered based on the actual (visual) shape of the
staves and objects attached to it, rather than treating each staff as a
box and the invisible space therein as sacred. A particularly striking
example of this sort of "interlocking" can be found in the Henle edition
(1980) of the Beethoven Piano Sonatas, volume II, p. 195, in measure 186.
Perhaps I could scan it, if anyone is interested.
As for the second line (the text seeming to collide with the beam), I have
found many analogous instances in published music where more space is
allowed, and a few which allow only such a thin hairline of space as
Lilypond does. I would say that, in general, a little more such space is
given -- perhaps 0.5 staff spaces would be a more appropriate minimum for
Lilypond, though it would be nice if the user could set this minimum value
globally, as it is somewhat a matter of personal preference.
These two issues then -- which I would summarize:
1. Vertical interlocking of staff objects should be allowed by default,
with an option to disable;
2. Minimum vertical space between objects should be maybe 0.5 spaces, and
anyway user-settable
are somewhere between defects, collisions, and enhancement requests,
depending on your point of view.
Cheers,
Marcus
%%%%%%% revised example: %%%%%%%
\version "2.9.22"
\score { <<
\new Staff \relative a' {
\repeat unfold 3 { a4 a a a }
<< {a4 a a a} \\ {a,8 a a a a a \times 2/3 {a a a}} >>
\break
\repeat unfold 4 << {a'4 a a a} \\ {a,8 a a a a a a a} >>
}
\new Staff \relative a' {
a1^\markup {
\column {
\line {Too much}
\line {vertical space?}
}}
a a a
\break
a^\markup {
\column {
\line {Enough}
\line {vertical space?}
}}
a a a
} >>
}
\layout { indent = #0 }
%%%%%%% end revised example %%%%%%%
Marcus Macauley wrote:
Sometimes Lilypond creates vertical space between staves to avoid a
collision between, for example, a text markup in one staff and a beam
in the other staff, when these two things happen in different measures
and wouldn't actually collide.
On the other hand, in cases where they do collide and hence the
vertical space is necessary, sometimes it isn't quite enough.
This file demonstrates both cases:
\version "2.9.22"
<<
\new Staff \relative a' { a4 a a a << {a a a a} \\ {a,8 a a a a a a a}
>> \break
\repeat unfold 3 { a'4 a a a << {a a a a} \\ {a,8 a a a a a a a} >>
}
}
\new Staff \relative a' {
a1^\markup {
\column {
\line {This text wouldn't collide w/ the beam,}
\line {so less vertical space is needed.}
}}
a \break
a^\markup {
\column {
\line {This text does collide with the beam,}
\line {so more vertical space is needed.}
}}
a a a a a
}
>>
\layout { }
_______________________________________________
bug-lilypond mailing list
bug-lilypond@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-lilypond
