2018-04-23 20:51 GMT+02:00 Torsten Hämmerle <torsten.haemme...@web.de>:
> foxfanfare wrote
>> Is it "tweakable" until a fix comes around?
> There is some kind of "kerning" possibility by using the padding-pairs
> property, but event this is useless in our case because all signs are
> naturals, but we need different kerning between natural and natural
> depending on their spatial arrangement.
>
> All the rest is pretty much hard-wired in C, there's even a special
> exception applying extra padding to natural signs, but it does not consider
> the individual vertical distance between the glyphs.
>
> Maybe Harm has a diabolic scheme tweak in his fist-aid collection, but in
> this case, I doubt it...
Hi,
I played a little with 'padding-pairs.
Obviously the execption to add 0.3 padding in
key-signature-interface.cc only applies if 'padding-pairs is unset.
Below is limited to flat-cancellation:
\version "2.19.81"
foo =
\override Staff.KeyCancellation.padding-pairs =
#(lambda (grob)
(let* ((alteration-alist (ly:grob-property grob 'alteration-alist)))
;; limited to flat-cancellation
(if (every negative? (map cdr alteration-alist))
'((("accidentals.natural" . "accidentals.natural") . 0.2))
'())))
\layout {
\foo
}
<<
{ \key aes \major s1 \key c \major s }
{ \key e \major s1 \key c \major s }
>>
For flat-cancellation:
The result is an even spacing of every natural. I'd call it a slight
improvement, but far from optimal.
The gap between first/second natural feels too wide and between
second/third too tight.
Sharp-cancellation is unchanged.
Nothing else in my black-box.
Cheers,
Harm
_______________________________________________
bug-lilypond mailing list
bug-lilypond@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-lilypond
