On Oct 25, 2011, at 5:52 AM, k-ohara5...@oco.net wrote: > > http://codereview.appspot.com/5293060/diff/2001/lily/beam.cc > File lily/beam.cc (right): > > http://codereview.appspot.com/5293060/diff/2001/lily/beam.cc#newcode987 > lily/beam.cc:987: Beam::calc_x_span (Grob *me_non_spanner, Grob > *commonx) > Why should the x-span of a line-broken beam depend on whether we > requested that it have consistent slope across the break? > Shouldn't the 'span' of a broken beam always go to the end of the beam, > beyond the last stem, for the purposes used in Beam::print() ? > If not, what use-case will break when we choose consistent-broken-slope > after this patch ?
Before this patch, the x_span of beams was only ever calculated between the first normal stem and last normal stem of a beam (omitting any trailing beamage on the left or right coming from breaks and/or stemlets). If it has a consistent slope, however, the x_span of a broken part of a beam should be the whole length, as the trailing beamage on the right and/or left are part of the length between two stems. This is where the difference comes from. When you say "what use-case will break when we choose consistent-broken-slope after this patch ?", I'm not sure what you mean. Thanks for the feedback! Cheers, MS _______________________________________________ lilypond-devel mailing list lilypond-devel@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
