2015-03-21 14:32 GMT+01:00 Marc Hohl <m...@hohlart.de>: > Am 21.03.2015 um 00:40 schrieb Thomas Morley: > >> 2015-03-21 0:09 GMT+01:00 Thomas Morley <thomasmorle...@gmail.com>: >> >>> >>> The 'arpeggio-property was deleted somewhere during 2.17. and I never >>> managed to get back the info whether a NoteColumn has an arpeggio, >> >> >> Btw, I tried again to find the commit on the tracker which removed the >> 'arpeggio-property (and probably the reason for it) and again without >> success. > > > I think it is > > 5ab8335d106d736335698245af3c1b2b2455aed6 > > > Adds arpeggio to conditional item grob array. > > The actual function of conditional elements was not correctly reflected > in the comment above Separation_item::boxes. This comment led one to > believe > that conditional elements were only used when notes with accidentals > had ties coming to them. This is not true. Conditional elements are > always > used for right columns when there is something to the left (see > Spacing_interface::skylines). They are omitted _only_ when they are > accidentals with ties coming to them. > > So why do we want an arpeggio to be a conditional element? There is > nothing conditional about it (it will always be printed, unlike > accidentals > with ties going to them). It is because conditional elements have the > double duty of being conditional (i.e. accidentals) AND being factored > into springs in note spacing (see the long comment in > Note_spacing::get_spacing) in the calculation of a spring's ideal > distance. > Other elements to the left of a note column, like scripts and > fingerings, > are only factored into the minimum distance. We want arpeggios to factor > into the ideal distance because otherwise they will be too close to > left note-columns in tight spacing situations. > > Lastly, there was no reason in the code base to keep a pointer to the > arpeggio in the note column, so it is removed here. > > --- > HTH, > > Marc
2015-03-21 14:37 GMT+01:00 David Nalesnik <david.nales...@gmail.com>: [...] > > P.S. Just this moment, Marc Hohl posted the commit message I was ready to > cut-and-paste! FWIW, I'll mention how I found it (though my bag of tricks > is pretty small). I used > > git log -p lily/rhythmic-column-engraver.cc > Thanks Marc and David pointing me in the correct direction. This is issue 3289 https://code.google.com/p/lilypond/issues/detail?id=3289 Curing a regression detected in 2.17. which was introduced during 2.15. Though, I have never seen this commit-message before! During the revue on Rietvield some more extended message was wished and obviously added right before pushing - no chance for anyone to look at it. If I had seen: > Lastly, there was no reason in the code base to keep a pointer to the > arpeggio in the note column, so it is removed here. I would have protested strongly. Instead http://lsr.di.unimi.it/LSR/Item?id=621 is partly broken. http://lilypondblog.org/2013/06/horizontally-aligning-full-measure-rests/ is partly broken. Also, some of my custom-functions are partly broken or never reached usability because of that missing 'arpeggio-property. Letting me no reasonable chance to get back the needed info. For more than a year! Color me annoyed and frustrated. Right now I have no interest in fixing the above. I'll let that to someone else, maybe the committer. -Harm _______________________________________________ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
