hi Marc, >> http://codereview.appspot.com/6305115/diff/1/scm/bar-line.scm >> File scm/bar-line.scm (right): >> >> http://codereview.appspot.com/6305115/diff/1/scm/bar-line.scm#newcode83 >> scm/bar-line.scm:83: (define (make-colon-bar-line grob) >> I'm afraid this defun doesn't match the relevant part of current >> Bar_line::compound_barline. >> >> try >> >> \new Staff { >> \override Staff.StaffSymbol #'line-positions = #'(-2 0 2 4) >> s1 \bar ":|" >> } > > Thanks for the hint! I didn't check the results with altered line positions > yet, > but I don't understand what's wrong here – IMHO the scheme stuff mimics > 1:1 the code from the original definition.
that definition was changed considerably in the meantime. > What is wrong here? in other threads this was answered, but let me summarize from another POV (noting that I'm not at all an expert): we have several conflicting properties (line-count, line-positions, staff-space), used in c++ generally through accessors; those accessors grew more sophisticated and mean no more the same as the property (as you saw line-count of scheme vs. line_count of c++). we even have some abstractions built on them (e.g. staff_radius), and that just adds to the confusion, which could grow for quite some time because noone uses these fancy staffs. well, I need them from time to time, so lately my work with Lilypond went to straightening up some of these issues. unfortunately I have just a little time for Lilypond and I'm much better versed in c++ than scheme, so I can't really help you with this project. p _______________________________________________ lilypond-devel mailing list lilypond-devel@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
