Simon Albrecht <simon.albre...@mail.de> writes: > On 20.09.2017 22:22, David Kastrup wrote: >> Thomas Morley <thomasmorle...@gmail.com> writes: >>> Hi Gianmaria, >>> >>> 2017-09-20 10:53 GMT+02:00 Gianmaria Lari <gianmarial...@gmail.com>: >>>> This code unfortunately does not work as expected (expected to me :)) >>> it's not clear to me what you expected. For me your image exactly >>> matches what you asked for. >> The bar line is gone. The code has a weird workaround in it (according >> to the issue report, reported by myself) for avoiding a >> stopStaff/startStaff gap. The workaround creates and hides a barline >> (WTF?) which gives the right appearance when there was no barline to >> start with. That's not the case here. > > I think that one’s on me, as I created the snippet and didn’t consider > the case that maybe the note to be coloured might be adjacent to a bar > line…
Well, to be honest, the "workaround" post from me was more intended as showing a code area where a proper fix may be implemented (because I already looked around for the cause and related code) rather than as a serious workaround. Sort-of half-joke and half info for someone looking at the problem at some later point of time. But, well, serves me right. > I don’t know of any other workaround for the \stopStaff/\startStaff > gap, but of course a check should be implemented to not eliminate any > existing bar lines. Sorry I can’t take the time to fix it myself right > now… -- David Kastrup _______________________________________________ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
