On 10/25/16 8:57 AM, "Chris Yate" <[email protected]> wrote:
>Hi Carl, >Firstly, thanks for your work on this! >At a quick glance, the only two situations that need dots-limit =2 are >#11 and #23. Yes, those were my two cases as well. >A side issue: >An idea I've just had: would it be useful to have a more flexible >positioning system similar to that for rests? (e.g. "f4/rest"). It might >be useful to have the option of custom dot placement for special cases. >I'm sure there's already a way to achieve this, but it's probably not >easy. If anyone thinks it worthwhile, I will think more about a suggested >syntax... Maybe something for the LSR rather than core functionality. As far as I can see in the existing code (not including my changes) there is no way to do this. But, this could be easily added onto my current architecture. I had actually planned for it earlier, but my planned architecture didn't work out. Butn now I can add it back in. The grob property that defines which algorithm is to be used to determine dot locations is currently a symbol. I can change it to symbol or list, and if it's a list, it's just a list of staff positions that should have dots. The Scheme code returns such a list, and it would be easy to check in the C++ code for it being a list, and then do the right thing with the list. I don't think there's any new syntax needed. Thanks for the good input! Carl _______________________________________________ lilypond-user mailing list [email protected] https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
