Hi Werner, On Mon, Jan 26, 2015 at 12:24 AM, Werner LEMBERG <w...@gnu.org> wrote:
> > >> That's effectively what I'm doing. I'm changing the X-offset > >> callback because it's only there that the property > >> toward-stem-shift is read (see scm/output-lib.scm). The trick is > >> allowing two different concurrent values for toward-stem-shift: 1.0 > >> for when the staccato is alone, 0.0 when other articulations are > >> present (like a portato) In my experiment, I simply did what the > >> engraver does regarding toward-stem-shift. > > Thanks for working on this! My pleasure! I have something which is almost ready to be reviewed, but I need to get several patches pushed and into current master first. > Will this also influence the positioning > of the end (or start) of a slur? Since I guess that the answer is no, > Unfortunately, that's a different problem. Of course, since the patch puts the staccato dots at stem end, you'll notice a (slight) improvement. (See attached.) I wonder how this could be improved, namely to set maximum and minimum > horizontal coordinates for slurs that must not be exceeded. > Not sure--I'd need to investigate. Something ought to be done about the vertical position, too, of course. That might be harder. (I'm just guessing.) > > > [...] what about changing toward-stem-shift to a number-pair instead > > of a number? > > Sounds sensible. > > I'm liking this approach--will be part of upcoming patch for review. Best, David
_______________________________________________ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
