On Thu, Feb 14, 2008 at 8:41 AM, Kieren MacMillan < [EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hi Werner, > > > I don't understand, why the \hspace #0 influences the raise > > As I understand it, the \hspace defines the height of the entire > markup box -- i.e., it is explicitly taller than either the fermata > or the (e.g.) "1." -- and thus it is this "larger" box (as set by the > height of an \hspace object) that is affected by the spacing code. > > You can also use this hint to line up custom dynamics with opposing > descenders and ascenders, e.g., > > pp gorgeous % all descenders > pp fantastic % all ascenders > > will not line up "correctly" by default. Nice. For the last year or so I've been using a transparent-f trick for the same purpose, for example: pppX = #(make-dynamic-script (markup #:combine #:transparent #:dynamic "f" #:line(#:hspace 0 #:dynamic "ppp" #:hspace 0))) and fffX = #(make-dynamic-script (markup #:combine #:transparent #:dynamic "f" #:line(#:hspace 0 #:dynamic "fff" #:hspace 0))) It's looks like craziness, but writing c'4 \ppX c'4 \fffX causes the dynamics to align absolutely perfectly once you've set DynamicLineSpanner #'staff-padding. I have a definition file of nothing but these custom dynamics that I use exclusively. It's been more than a year since I've used a built-in Lily dynamic like \pp or \ff because the vertical alignment with the transparent-f trick is so much better. (I'd actually suggest changing out the default dynamics definitions in the distro, but not sure if that's the behavior anyone else would actually want.) -- Trevor Bača [EMAIL PROTECTED]
_______________________________________________ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
