On Nov 23, 2011, at 9:21 AM, Keith OHara wrote:
> On Mon, 21 Nov 2011 00:16:12 -0800, Keith OHara <k-ohara5...@oco.net> wrote:
>
>> On Sun, 20 Nov 2011 23:57:22 -0800, <m...@apollinemike.com> wrote:
>>
>>> I think that you're right for most cases, but for a piece with lots of
>>> accidentals that could potentially hang over barlines, this complexity
>>> in estimation seems to help.
>>
>> Have an example where pure-from-neighbor would do better than
>> axis-group-interface:height ?
>>
> Well I can't seem to get axis-group-interface:height to work for BarLines at
> all.
> I must not understand how SpanBars used to work.
axis-group-interface::height takes the height of the grobs in the 'elements
grob-array for a given grob. Span bars have bar lines in their 'elements grob
array, which is why span bars worked. Bar lines don't have an 'elements grob
array (they just have a 'neighbors grob array with the current patch).
>
>>
>> I expect that occasionally, this patch will let a collision with a span
>> bar leak through, but it would be something crazy like an \espressivo atop
>> a \downbow on a note connected to a cross-staff slur. The \espressivo
>> isn't pure-relevant because of the cross-staff poisoning.
>
> This doesn't look too bad. At most it slightly increases the incidence of
> cross-staff collisions
> \new GrandStaff <<
> \new Staff = "up" {
> g'1 \noBreak g'1 \noBreak g'1 }
> \new Staff = "down" {
> g'1 g'1 e''2_\(\portato\espressivo
> \change Staff="up" f'2\) } >>
> The espressivo is generally disrespected in spacing. If we turn the g's in
> the upper staff into gs, the last of them hits the espressivo.
>
Thanks for the example! I'll address it after pushing this series of patches.
If I forget, please remind me.
Cheers,
MS
_______________________________________________
lilypond-devel mailing list
lilypond-devel@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
