On Jul 16, 2011, at 3:39 AM, hanw...@gmail.com wrote: > > http://codereview.appspot.com/4747045/diff/2001/lily/grob.cc > File lily/grob.cc (right): > > http://codereview.appspot.com/4747045/diff/2001/lily/grob.cc#newcode528 > lily/grob.cc:528: Grob::in_own_family_tree (Grob *g, Grob *orig) > I think this should take an axis argument, and check only one axis. > > http://codereview.appspot.com/4747045/diff/2001/lily/include/grob.hh > File lily/include/grob.hh (right): > > http://codereview.appspot.com/4747045/diff/2001/lily/include/grob.hh#newcode140 > lily/include/grob.hh:140: static bool in_own_family_tree(Grob *g, Grob > *orig); > this needs a small comment; could probably be normal method as well. > > I think > > a->has_ancestor(b) > > would be more clear. > > http://codereview.appspot.com/4747045/diff/2001/lily/pitched-trill-engraver.cc > File lily/pitched-trill-engraver.cc (right): > > http://codereview.appspot.com/4747045/diff/2001/lily/pitched-trill-engraver.cc#newcode124 > lily/pitched-trill-engraver.cc:124: trill_group_->translate_axis > ((unsmob_pitch (scm_pitch)->steps () + c0 ) * 0.5, > you can't do typography (positioning) in any engraver. This wil mess up > positioning with modified staff sizes. >
I'm gonna pull this patch out of consideration - both you and Neil are right about checking parents on an axis-by-axis basis. My desire to do this comes from an incomplete understanding of what "parent" means in LilyPond speak. I now understand that grob A can be grob B's X parent while grob B is grob A's Y parent. In this case, the approach in my tuplet patch holds because I only check along the Y_AXIS (as Carl suggested), which eliminates the recursive problem. Cheers, MS _______________________________________________ lilypond-devel mailing list lilypond-devel@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
