Le 8 Dec 2011 à 00:17:56 -0800, m...@apollinemike.com a écrit :
Le Dec 8, 2011 à 1:30 AM, k-ohara5...@oco.net a écrit :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.
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.
Hey Mike, I was in the hairpin code for issue 1216 and noticed that you apply broken-bound-padding for both of the cases we talked about above. That means that for the original example in issue 2057, the hairpins ending at the end of the line get only half the space as the ones ending at other bar lines, and there is no distinction between hairpins that end at the end of the line versus those that continue on the next line. It's not a big difference, until somebody overrides 'bound-padding and still gets the hard-coded 0.6 staff-space at the final bar line. What do you think about integrating your code into the old logic like this <http://codereview.appspot.com/5479071/> so that hairpins ending on a non-musical column get 'bound-padding, while hairpins broken across lines get 'broken-bound-padding which calls your new code ? Your regression test is unchanged. Lemme know. -Keith
<<attachment: 2057.png>>
_______________________________________________ lilypond-devel mailing list lilypond-devel@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
