Reviewers: Keith, dak,
http://codereview.appspot.com/6778050/diff/1001/lily/breathing-sign.cc File lily/breathing-sign.cc (left): http://codereview.appspot.com/6778050/diff/1001/lily/breathing-sign.cc#oldcode88 lily/breathing-sign.cc:88: int const int_dim = (int) ydim[i]; On 2012/10/27 19:36:21, Keith wrote:
If you want to avoid ending the divisi at a fractional position, maybe
just
ydim[i] = int_dim;
this juggling was done only because Symbol_referencer::on_staff_line takes an int, whereas the staff positions are Real's. http://codereview.appspot.com/6778050/diff/1001/lily/breathing-sign.cc File lily/breathing-sign.cc (right): http://codereview.appspot.com/6778050/diff/1001/lily/breathing-sign.cc#newcode99 lily/breathing-sign.cc:99: standard algorithms are suitable to find the upper line of On 2012/10/27 19:51:49, dak wrote:
Do we really need a complicated variable line arrangement algorithm
here? I want staves with line-positions like (-2 0 2 4) work. I could arrange for this a bit simpler, but the moral I drew from the line-count saga is that from time to time comes a user with tablature or line-positions (-4 4) or (-4 0 4) (I know, they are not using \divisioMaior, only repeat signs, bar lines, slurs, time signatures, etc.), and if I can cater for them, then I should do it.
Nobody complained before this was "fixed" 2.15-ish.
I apologise, my original "fix" is plain silly.
It really looks like an overly complex solution to a self-made
problem. of course I wouldn't mind anybody coming up with a more elegant solution, but the original code relying on the line-count property is unacceptable for me (not here, but at enough other places to make me hunt these down).
I think that for most of those problems, the very old code looking
only at the
line-count property (even when it was overruled via line-positions for
special
effects) was producing exactly what people expected and wanted.
I started this series about a year ago because I couldn't make the old code produce what I wanted. see also your comment in http://code.google.com/p/lilypond/issues/detail?id=2783#c35 (BTW let me note that I'm working on rests as hinted at in comment 34.)
All that magic and second-guessing does not appear to have resulted in
an
improvement for actual scores. Not in results, and most certainly not
in
predictability.
if "common" staves are not predictable, it's a bug and I'm willing to work on it. having said all this, I don't mind if this particular patch is rejected. http://codereview.appspot.com/6778050/diff/1001/lily/breathing-sign.cc#newcode112 lily/breathing-sign.cc:112: assert (line_pos.begin () < it); On 2012/10/27 19:36:21, Keith wrote:
Can you assert this here, and similarly a few lines down? If someone
uses a
collapsed staff with all line-positions equal, I would have thought
that
lower_bound() would return a pointer to the first line-position, and
similarly
upper_bound() a pointer to one beyond the last line-position.
you are right; what's more, assertions are futile in such cases, this condition must be checked (and perhaps I'll just do nothing). Description: fix representation switching from line-position to staff-space Please review this at http://codereview.appspot.com/6778050/ Affected files: M input/regression/breathing-sign-ancient.ly M lily/breathing-sign.cc _______________________________________________ lilypond-devel mailing list lilypond-devel@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
