On Mon, 2010-03-29 at 17:04 -0400, Boris Shingarov wrote: > > Do we really need this to be included in every Interval? I'd have > > thought that the only data structure that needs to change is > > Line_details. > > Right, but how do you get the actual value in there? Replace constrained-breaking.cc:461 by
Interval begin_extent = sys->begin_of_line_extent (start, end); Interval rest_extent = sys->rest_of_line_extent (start, end); and replace constrained-breaking.cc:485 by something analogous. > Hang on a bit, I am debugging the patch, so I can post it and then we > can look at actual code instead of drawing pictures in the air. I'd rather discuss this point now, because I don't like the extension of Interval (and I'd rather you didn't spend a whole lot of time getting it to work if there is a nicer way): intervals are used all over the code and I think they should really remain intervals, rather than hiding additional complexity. If you really need to carry all of the double-intervals around, I think you should create a separate class for them, so they are only used where we want to use them. Cheers, Joe _______________________________________________ bug-lilypond mailing list bug-lilypond@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-lilypond
