On Mar 11, 2011, at 2:44 PM, Han-Wen Nienhuys wrote:
> Hi Mike,
>
> can fix the below points before continuing with pushing stuff for this
> patch series?
>
> On Sun, Mar 6, 2011 at 8:46 PM, <mts...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> +// ugh...code dup...hopefully can be consolidated w/ above one day
>
> can you make a priority to do this right now? If it's not done
> directly, 'one day' usually does not happen at all.
Sorry - the consolidation already happened in the internal print function. I
forgot
to remove the comment.
>
>> + int pos = orig->spanned_rank_interval ()[LEFT];
>> + Real spanner_placement = min (1.0,
>> + max (robust_scm2double
>> (me->get_property ("spanner-placement"), -1.0),
>> + -1.0));
>> +
>> + spanner_placement = (spanner_placement + 1.0) / 2.0;
>> + int rpos = orig->spanned_rank_interval ()[RIGHT];
>> + pos = (int)((rpos - pos) * spanner_placement + pos + 0.5);
>> +
>> + if (pos < me->spanned_rank_interval () [LEFT])
>> + return SCM_EOL;
>
> Can you rethink this? The rank numbers are not good measures of
> anything. In particular, adding a new voice/staff with different
> rhythmic texture will cause these numbers to fluctuate, and mess up
> your positioning. I still think this is a overall bad idea, and would
> love to see examples where users need placement of footnotes, but
> placement so inexact that they do not want to use per-item
> positioning. One possibility is to use column->when() as a measure,
> as it is least somewhat invariant, but preferably I'd like to scrap
> this (especially given the code dup and overall ugliness) until we
> have proof that it's really needed.
Done.
http://codereview.appspot.com/4286042/
Cheers,
MS_______________________________________________
lilypond-devel mailing list
lilypond-devel@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
