On Mar 12, 2011, at 8:49 AM, hanw...@gmail.com wrote: > > http://codereview.appspot.com/4237057/diff/1/lily/spanner.cc > File lily/spanner.cc (right): > > http://codereview.appspot.com/4237057/diff/1/lily/spanner.cc#newcode405 > lily/spanner.cc:405: Spanner::broken_spanner_index (Spanner const *sp) > On 2011/03/12 10:18:06, MikeSol wrote: >> On 2011/03/09 23:03:44, hanwenn wrote: >> > why not make it a real member funtcion? > >> Actually - sorry, I spoke too soon. I see that there's a function >> get_break_index. Could these two functions be merged? Is there a > reason that >> the two functions exist separately? If not, I'll merge them together. > > good point. Can you replace broken_spanner_index by get_break_index > everywhere? should be separate commit to go in before this one. If it > passes the regtest cleanly, does not need to be reviewed. > > http://codereview.appspot.com/4237057/diff/8001/lily/beam.cc > File lily/beam.cc (right): > > http://codereview.appspot.com/4237057/diff/8001/lily/beam.cc#newcode144 > lily/beam.cc:144: Beam::get_beam_span (Spanner* me) > Why can't you use spanner::spanner_length()? these numbers don't need > to be that exact, do they? > > http://codereview.appspot.com/4237057/diff/8001/lily/beam.cc#newcode160 > lily/beam.cc:160: extract_grob_set (me, "stems", stems); > you already have them. line 145. In this case you might as well use > get_bound() rather than the stems, btw. > > http://codereview.appspot.com/4237057/diff/8001/lily/beam.cc#newcode169 > lily/beam.cc:169: Beam::get_span_data (Spanner *me) > _data -> _widths ? > > http://codereview.appspot.com/4237057/diff/8001/lily/beam.cc#newcode171 > lily/beam.cc:171: > drop > > http://codereview.appspot.com/4237057/diff/8001/lily/beam.cc#newcode634 > lily/beam.cc:634: if (Spanner::broken_spanner_index (me) == (int)i) > use newstyle casting int(i) > > http://codereview.appspot.com/4237057/diff/8001/lily/beam.cc#newcode646 > lily/beam.cc:646: } > how about you store this in a property? You could compute the property > in a separate function, say > > feather-fractions pair? "how much of feathering for this beam" > > and the computation would only need to be done once. > > 1st beam gets: (0.0 . 0.25) > 2nd: (0.25 . 0.75) > 3rd: (0.75 . 1.0) > > (assuming total beam length of 2x linesize). > > then print() only needs to do the part for its own system. > > unfeathered beams get (1.0 . 1.0) and shrinking beams (1.0 . 0.0) >
All issues addressed. New patch set up at http://codereview.appspot.com/4237057/ Cheers, MS _______________________________________________ lilypond-devel mailing list lilypond-devel@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
