Sorry for the even later reply, but this seems to work great as well –
and thanks for updating the snippet already :)
Cheers,
Lucas
On 18.03.2018 19:35, Thomas Morley wrote:
> Hi Lucas,
>
> sorry for the late reply
>
> 2018-03-16 0:50 GMT+01:00 Lucas Werkmeister <m...@lucaswerkmeister.de>:
>
>> Perhaps we can submit this as an update for the snippet repository? (I’d be
>> happy to do the paperwork if you’re okay with it.)
>>
>> Not tested beyond the given examples, though.
>>
>> FWIW, it seems to work fine in the larger score where I encountered this
>> issue (though the situation there isn’t really more complicated than in
>> these examples).
> In further testings I observed a disadvantage of the approach via
> Stem.positioning-done:
>
> If a user has different sized note-heads in a chord, the zero-value is
> not a neutral element.
>
> See:
>
> {
> \once \override Stem.positioning-done = #(positioning-done '(0 0))
> <
> \tweak style #'slash
> c'
> g'
> >2
> }
>
> To fix it, I think one would need to reimplement (with hooks to
> customize the behaviour) the note-head/stem-placing-procedures in
> scheme.
> Apart from my lazyness ... it feels like overkill.
>
> Thus I implemented a different code in the lsr-snippet.
> Replacing the stencil-calls (only needed for getting the extents) by
> the grob-extents.
>
> http://lsr.di.unimi.it/LSR/Item?id=861
>
> WYT?
>
> Best,
> Harm
>
> _______________________________________________
> lilypond-user mailing list
> lilypond-user@gnu.org
> https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
_______________________________________________
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
