Le Dec 8, 2011 à 1:30 AM, k-ohara5...@oco.net a écrit : > Mike, > The old code was making a distinction between hairpins that end at the > end of a line and those that continue on the next line. > Sadly, the meaning of the boolean 'broken[]' stores at first whether > the bound on either end of a hair pin is at a line break, and then > broken[RIGHT] is changed so that it stores whether the hairpin itself > was broken into pieces on the right hand side. > Does your code preserve this distinction? > >
Yes. I care about the latter (whether the hairpin itself is broken) and all my code kicks in after this distinction is made. > http://codereview.appspot.com/5438060/diff/2027/lily/hairpin.cc > File lily/hairpin.cc (right): > > http://codereview.appspot.com/5438060/diff/2027/lily/hairpin.cc#newcode138 > lily/hairpin.cc:138: if (broken[RIGHT]) > The former code determining which hairpins were broken on the right, in > the sense of broken in the middle of the hairpin {c2\< c \break c c\f}, > is still around, and it is difficult to tell whether it still does > anything. > I'm not sure...in a separate patch, we can try removing it and see if that results in anything. > http://codereview.appspot.com/5438060/diff/2027/scm/define-grob-properties.scm > File scm/define-grob-properties.scm (right): > > http://codereview.appspot.com/5438060/diff/2027/scm/define-grob-properties.scm#newcode1049 > scm/define-grob-properties.scm:1049: be drawn above and below the staff. > If no span bar is in a position, > be drawn below and above the staff, respectively. Sorry, I don't understand this comment. Could you please rephrase it? Cheers, MS _______________________________________________ lilypond-devel mailing list lilypond-devel@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
