On 9/15/16 8:01 AM, "Chris Yate" <chrisy...@gmail.com> wrote:
>On Thu, 15 Sep 2016 at 14:36 Chris Yate <chrisy...@gmail.com> wrote: > > >> According to Gould, I believe that dots limit 3 is the correct setting. > > > > > >OK. On reflection, perhaps I can see your reasoning, although I disagree >that the current situation reliably produces the notation one would >expect. And it's insufficiently controllable. I believe I agree that it's insufficiently controllable. > > >In any case, I might argue "chord-dots-limit" isn't unambiguously >explained > > >". Limits the column of dots on each chord to the height of the chord >plus chord-dots-limit staff-positions." I would change the wording to say something like "The maximum distance between the extreme dot on a dot column and the closest note on a chord must be less than or equal to chord-dots-limit staff positions." > > >In situation 1 in my test cases, the height of the chord is 4 >staff-positions... or is it 2 and a half staff-spaces? In situation 1, the dot in the A space is one staff-space (two staff positions) above the top of the chord; the dot in the B space is one-half staff space (one staff position) below the bottom of the chord. > > > >Should I want in example 2, to have dots on the D, F, A spaces and not on >B, then chord-dots-limit=1 might be interpreted to suppress the dot >that's 2 staff positions away from the chord (on B space) and place one 1 >staff position _above_ the chord, on > A. The dotsUp and dotsDown settings don't appear to have any effect >here. I see your point here. It seems that we ought to be able to set chords-dots-limit to 2, and then get the dots on the D, F and A instead of B, D, and F. And perhaps we have no property that will allow this to happen. Thanks, Carl _______________________________________________ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
