2016-01-01 22:30 GMT+01:00 David Kastrup <d...@gnu.org>:
> Kieren MacMillan <kieren_macmil...@sympatico.ca> writes:
>
>> Hi David,
>>
>>> To me it would appear that in this case by far the lion's share of the
>>> work is digging through reference books (incidentally, I don't have any
>>> of those), devising a good plan for the desired behavior, checking with
>>> the current behavior, figuring out where the differences are,
>>> cross-checking with other line spanners, abstracting useful
>>> commonalities and differences and only ultimately touching the code.
>>
>> If OttavaBracket simply supported line-spanner-interface (as per my
>> feature request in a previous email), and I submitted a reasonable set
>> of defaults and syntactic sugar — based on the many reference books
>> (which, incidentally, I *do* have) — we’d satisfy 99.5% of the
>> OttavaBracket needs of 99.5% of the Lilypond user base.
>>
>> Getting that done in a short amount of time seems like a far better
>> idea (to me) than spending multiple hours cross-checking other
>> spanners, etc., and possibly not rolling out such useful features in
>> the foreseeable future.
>>
>> It’s funny: I have been taken to task more than one time on this list
>> for defining too large and vague a feature/request. Now an incredibly
>> focused and well-defined task (“make OttavaBracket support
>> line-spanner-interface”) is apparently too small and/or specific?
>
> It is trivial to let OttavaBracket contain line-spanner-interface which
> is just a label for a set of properties. What those properties do
> depends on actual code, however. It's common that different grobs react
> somewhat differently (or not at all) to particular properties.
>
> So it's quite trivial to complete the "well-defined" task without doing
> anything remotely useful.
>
> --
> David Kastrup
Hi Kieren,
to illustrate: Even without having put line-spanner-interface into
OttavaBracket in any kind, you can set the relevant properties and you
can read out the values elsewhere. But nothing else happens, see:
{
\override Staff.OttavaBracket.after-line-breaking =
#(lambda (grob)
(display-scheme-music (ly:grob-property grob 'bound-details)))
\override Staff.OttavaBracket.bound-details =
#`((left . ((Y . 0)
(attach-dir . ,LEFT)
(padding . 0)
(stencil-align-dir-y . ,CENTER)))
(right . ((Y . 5)
(padding . 0)
(attach-dir . ,RIGHT)
(text . "xxxxxxxxxxxxxx"))))
\ottava #-1
c'1 d'
}
Explicitely including line-spanner-interface will make no difference.
What's needed is that the stencil-procedure reads those settings and
does something useful with them.
Now we're back to what is this "something"?
As a wild and untested guess: I want to test whether I can extend
ly:line-spanner::print to have bracket-angles, determined by
'bracket-flare and 'edge-height.
Though, even with success, it would be a scheme-hack, nothing we would
want to see in the source.
More: the properties 'shorten-pair (if kept) and
'bound-details.left/right.X and 'bound-details.left/right.padding
conflict in a certain way. Needs to be resolved.
I'll give it a try next days.
Cheers,
Harm
_______________________________________________
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
