Carl Sorensen <c_soren...@byu.edu> writes: > On 10/25/16 8:57 AM, "Chris Yate" <chrisy...@gmail.com> 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.
Su why is a symbol needed? Symbols always require some secret lookup mechanism. Why not just use a list here? When the list needs to be calculated, it can be a callback, right? -- David Kastrup _______________________________________________ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
