2016-01-01 19:23 GMT+01:00 David Kastrup <d...@gnu.org>: > Kieren MacMillan <kieren_macmil...@sympatico.ca> writes: > >> Hi Harm, >> >> Thank you so much for doing all this! Very informative and helpful. >> >>> I made some fundamental research about spanners with line-interface >>> and those with additional line-spanner-interface. >>> Code, pdf, log attached. Their behaviour is inconsistent, to say the least. >> >> =( >> >>> Regarding default OttavaBracket: >>> It doesn't have line-spanner-interface […] >>> It is discussable whether OttavaBracket should behave more like other >>> spanners with line-spanner-interface. I guess the main reason why >>> OttavaBracket is done as it is, was to have edge-height and >>> bracket-flare user-settable. >>> Though, this may be possible even if the stencil-procedure would >>> listen to the properties from line-spanner-interface. >>> >>> This would mean to rewrite the stencil, ofcourse. C++ work, which I >>> can't do myself. >> >> David K: Here, I believe, is a perfect example of a well-defined task >> that I would be happy to sponsor. > > "particular" is not the same as "well-defined". I can't even figure out > what this is supposed to be about. > > -- > David Kastrup
True. I posted my findings, else I wrote "discussable ..." So, let's start discussion. In the end the general question "How should OttavaBracket behave?" should be answered detailed. Part of it: Which properties should be user-settable? How should a (maybe broken) OttavaBracket behave at (line-)start/end. Maybe crossing items like TimeSignature, BarLine, KeySignature etc., when broken. Only some questions, there may be others waiting to be answered. Cheers, Harm _______________________________________________ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
