At 15:01 on 15 Nov 2020, Joram Noeck wrote: > Hi, > > I like the change in the bar number alignment. I have some comments to > your proposal. (The current solution has similar issues, so most of > these are not speaking against proposed changes.) > > The -> denotes the solution for which that is an argument. > > 1. putting the bar number over the measure it belongs just makes sense > (-> Gould) > > 2. The end of a measure is typically less crowded so middle-of-line bar > numbers need less vertical shifts for collision avoidance which looks > better. The new implementation looks irregular and jumpy (-> current) > > 3. In particular at the start of a line, the number is moved up by every > treble clef, i.e. we have an exception by collision avoidance in the > most common case. (-> current or MR) > > 4. Shifting it further right than left aligned is too much and breaks > the visual connection between bar line and bar number (-> not further) > > 5. Bar numbers on the right margin look odd. They should definitely be > right aligned in that position (if the user turns them on at all) > > > Therefore, I would center-align it like your MR does for begin-of-line > and middle-of-line positions, but not at the end of a line. > > Cheers, > Joram
This is a great evaluation. There are advantages and disadvantages to each alignment choice. Regardless of what ends up as the default, it seems clear that there is a good use case for different alignment at start, middle and end-of-line. Might it be possible that this can be set somewhat like: \override Score.BarNumber.self-alignment-X = #(1 0 -1) where the list applies different values to each position? A call such as: \override Score.BarNumber.self-alignment-X = #1 would be equivalent to \override Score.BarNumber.self-alignment-X = #(1 1 1) -- Mark Knoop
