On Sun, Oct 3, 2010 at 10:59 AM, <markpole...@gmail.com> wrote: > I've uploaded a new patch set for review, but I still have > some questions. > > First, some questions for Joe Neeman: > > Joe, with commit 7d410b9 (from 2009-12-17), in NR 4.4.1 > "Vertical spacing inside a system - Spacing between staves", > you wrote: > If unset, stretchability defaults to > space - minimum-distance. >
This isn't quite accurate: actually, our "ideal" springs have two different spring constants, one for compressing and one for stretching. The default stretchability is (space - minimum-distance) for compressing and space for stretching (the stretching one is probably more important in practice). > But 4 months later, with commit d701703 (2010-04-20), in > lily/spacing-basic.cc, you wrote: > By default, the spring will have an > inverse_stretch_strength of space+min_dist. > > Is this a contradiction? Could you confirm the default > calculation of 'stretchability? (Unfortunately, I don't > speak C/C++). > This is for horizontal spacing, not vertical spacing. Also, the comment means to say: "if not for the next line of code, the default _would be_ space+min_dist, > > Also, I rewrote the 'stretchability entry; can you > double-check that there's nothing erroneous/misleading? > Should I remove the +inf.0 bit? > +inf.0 will cause a programming_error (and it will be ignored). Internally, we use 1e7 for an almost infinitely stretchable spring. Cheers, Joe
_______________________________________________ lilypond-devel mailing list lilypond-devel@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
