Re: convert-ly \bar "." false warning?
On Mon, Oct 4, 2010 at 7:27 PM, Graham Percival wrote: > Does this patch look ok? Were I daring enough, I'd say LGTM :-) (But you do want other people to comment on that.) Cheers, Valentin ___ lilypond-devel mailing list lilypond-devel@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
Re: docs addition, beaming cadenzas
Keith E OHara wrote Tuesday, October 05, 2010 7:18 AM In the existing @knownissues for cadenzaOn, I suggest adding one sentence (in context below) encouraging manual beams. Users might *think* autobeaming works through cadenzas, and it does for a while, but it will not through longer cadenzas. Thanks, Keith. I made this change pretty much as you suggested. [Graham: I believe it is right to include issues marked as enhancements in the known issues list, especially those with low priority. If these are ever implemented the docs will need to be changed anyway, unlike bug fixes, so the known issue list can then be amended.] The immediately-following example depended on autobeaming, I made its beam manual. (While I'm at it, I suggest this one be an @example, because in this case the _code_ is the point, and the image gives no useful information.) Agreed Two earlier examples use autobeaming in their cadenzas, so I marked the two affected lines below, but this detail is not worth much effort. I fixed them anyway as you suggested Trevor ___ lilypond-devel mailing list lilypond-devel@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
attachment points for vertical spacing dimensions
WRT the flexible vertical spacing dimensions, the upper attachment points for 'space and 'minimum-distance currently align with the Y-coordinate of the origin (0,0) of the upper item. For systems this is the middle line of the nearest staff, and for markups this is the highest point of the markup. In the newest docs (NR 4.1.2 as of yesterday), these are called "reference points". I think that most of the resulting dimensions are what the user would naturally expect them to be, except when the upper item is a title/markup. In these cases, I think the most natural attachment point would be the *bottom* of the upper markup. This applies to 3 of the 8 flexible vertical dimensions: * after-title-spacing * between-title-spacing * bottom-system-spacing The proposed change to after-title-spacing needs no comment. For between-title-spacing however, I should mention that if the upper attachment point (of 'space and 'minimum-distance) is moved to the bottom of the upper markup, then the 'padding value is basically rendered redundant. In that case, 'padding would only influence the spacing if it were larger than 'minimum-distance, and making 'padding larger than 'minimum-distance is generally pointless since that in turn would render 'minimum-distance redundant. That being said, I don't think this is a problem; the spacing behavior would still be more natural IMO. And a simple explanation for this unique case could be added to the docs. Of the three, bottom-system-spacing is slightly more complicated, since it currently controls the spacing below systems *and* markups, when either is the last on a page. So the natural attachment point for systems would remain the same, but would be shifted to the lowest Y-coordinate for markups (ideally). Personally, I think we should add a new variable to control the spacing between a markup and the bottom margin. We could call it bottom-markup-spacing for now, but see this post for my proposed variable renaming: http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/lilypond-devel/2010-10/msg00070.html Let me know what you guys think; it would be nice to achieve consensus on this one. Thanks. - Mark ___ lilypond-devel mailing list lilypond-devel@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
Re: Does LaissezVibrerTie need a 'cross-staff callback?
On Mon, Sep 6, 2010 at 11:01 PM, Neil Puttock wrote: > I'm getting cyclic dependency problems with laissez vibrer ties > attached to cross-staff notes which seems harmless in a minimal > snippet, but more serious in a real music example. It appears to have > been introduced following the fix for issue #881, which made the > LaissezVibrerTie print callback pure using a wrapper around > ly:tie::print. Hi Neil, sorry for bumping this discussion, but I thought I'd let you know that I opened http://code.google.com/p/lilypond/issues/detail?id=1296 accordingly to your report (even while it may not qualify as a bug, although I think it does). Cheers, Valentin ___ lilypond-devel mailing list lilypond-devel@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
Re: attachment points for vertical spacing dimensions
On 10/5/10 12:09 PM, "Mark Polesky" wrote: > WRT the flexible vertical spacing dimensions, the upper > attachment points for 'space and 'minimum-distance currently > align with the Y-coordinate of the origin (0,0) of the upper > item. For systems this is the middle line of the nearest > staff, and for markups this is the highest point of the > markup. In the newest docs (NR 4.1.2 as of yesterday), > these are called "reference points". > > I think that most of the resulting dimensions are what the > user would naturally expect them to be, except when the > upper item is a title/markup. In these cases, I think the > most natural attachment point would be the *bottom* of the > upper markup. I actually think that the top reference is more consistent with the staff behavior, in that the spacing doesn't take into account the extent of the object. Spacing between staves doesn't look at how high or low the contents of the staff go; it just looks at the space between the reference points. Once we understand that meaning, it's very consistent. top-markup-spacing is the spacing between the top of the page and the markup (title) that is the first thing on the page. Markup-system-spacing is the spacing between that markup and the first system on the page. And it uses the reference points for both. Similarly, spacing between markups shouldn't look at the size of the markup; it should define a desired spacing. The desire to keep items separate should be accomodated by padding, which is used to guarantee a minimum amount of whitespace. By moving the reference point to the bottom of the markup, you are making the size of the top markup part of the page layout size. I can see that this is desirable in one sense, because we are concerned about the space between the bottom of the markup and the top of the score. But it's undesirable in another sense, because our spacing can't account for all of the space on the page. In the current setup, all of the space on the page is accounted for in the spacing settings, and we can manage the space between elements with the padding settings. I think using it as it is with a correct understanding due to the excellent documentation you're preparing, and with the new names you're proposing, is the right way to do it. > > This applies to 3 of the 8 flexible vertical dimensions: > * after-title-spacing > * between-title-spacing > * bottom-system-spacing > > The proposed change to after-title-spacing needs no comment. > > For between-title-spacing however, I should mention that if > the upper attachment point (of 'space and 'minimum-distance) > is moved to the bottom of the upper markup, then the > 'padding value is basically rendered redundant. In that > case, 'padding would only influence the spacing if it were > larger than 'minimum-distance, and making 'padding larger > than 'minimum-distance is generally pointless since that in > turn would render 'minimum-distance redundant. That being > said, I don't think this is a problem; the spacing behavior > would still be more natural IMO. And a simple explanation > for this unique case could be added to the docs. As I mentioned above, I *like* the idea that spacing is between reference points, and padding is between skylines. Keeping it as-is would make this behavior consistent across the board. > > Of the three, bottom-system-spacing is slightly more > complicated, since it currently controls the spacing below > systems *and* markups, when either is the last on a page. > So the natural attachment point for systems would remain the > same, but would be shifted to the lowest Y-coordinate for > markups (ideally). Again, I like the name last-item-spacing, which would apply to whatever is the final layout item and the bottom margin. Again, with proper understanding of padding, I think everything works properly. As I now understand things, I think that I would be unlikely to use minimum-distance for anything. I think I'd just use space and padding. Thanks, Carl ___ lilypond-devel mailing list lilypond-devel@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
Re: attachment points for vertical spacing dimensions
On Tue, Oct 5, 2010 at 11:09 AM, Mark Polesky wrote: > WRT the flexible vertical spacing dimensions, the upper > attachment points for 'space and 'minimum-distance currently > align with the Y-coordinate of the origin (0,0) of the upper > item. For systems this is the middle line of the nearest > staff, and for markups this is the highest point of the > markup. In the newest docs (NR 4.1.2 as of yesterday), > these are called "reference points". > > I think that most of the resulting dimensions are what the > user would naturally expect them to be, except when the > upper item is a title/markup. In these cases, I think the > most natural attachment point would be the *bottom* of the > upper markup. > I would argue that the baseline is more natural then the bottom. Moreover, using the baseline as a reference point will result in more even spacing of multiple consecutive lines of markup. > > This applies to 3 of the 8 flexible vertical dimensions: > * after-title-spacing > * between-title-spacing > * bottom-system-spacing > > The proposed change to after-title-spacing needs no comment. > > For between-title-spacing however, I should mention that if > the upper attachment point (of 'space and 'minimum-distance) > is moved to the bottom of the upper markup, then the > 'padding value is basically rendered redundant. This is not actually true (even if we change the refpoint to the bottom) because minimum-distance measures the distance from the refpoint of the markup to the *refpoint* of the next system, while padding measures the distance to the *top* of the next system. In that > case, 'padding would only influence the spacing if it were > larger than 'minimum-distance, and making 'padding larger > than 'minimum-distance is generally pointless since that in > turn would render 'minimum-distance redundant. That being > said, I don't think this is a problem; the spacing behavior > would still be more natural IMO. And a simple explanation > for this unique case could be added to the docs. > > Of the three, bottom-system-spacing is slightly more > complicated, since it currently controls the spacing below > systems *and* markups, when either is the last on a page. > So the natural attachment point for systems would remain the > same, but would be shifted to the lowest Y-coordinate for > markups (ideally). > > Personally, I think we should add a new variable to control > the spacing between a markup and the bottom margin. We > could call it bottom-markup-spacing for now, but see this > post for my proposed variable renaming: > This is easy enough to add (and the naming seems fine to me). Cheers, Joe ___ lilypond-devel mailing list lilypond-devel@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
Re: attachment points for vertical spacing dimensions
On 2010-10-05 21:53, Carl Sorensen wrote: On 10/5/10 12:09 PM, "Mark Polesky" wrote: Of the three, bottom-system-spacing is slightly more complicated, since it currently controls the spacing below systems *and* markups, when either is the last on a page. So the natural attachment point for systems would remain the same, but would be shifted to the lowest Y-coordinate for markups (ideally). Again, I like the name last-item-spacing, which would apply to whatever is the final layout item and the bottom margin. Again, with proper understanding of padding, I think everything works properly. As I now understand things, I think that I would be unlikely to use minimum-distance for anything. I think I'd just use space and padding. I regularly use 'minimum-distance and a large negative 'padding in bottom-system-spacing to align the last staves to the same Y-offset, regardless of single note descenders or similar. Also, this is a case where I actually wish the "reference point" of the markup were on the opposite side, i.e. the bottom of the markup (or top of the bottom margin), s.t. any copyright or tagline really stays inside the footer and does not destroy the alignment of the staves on the page. That'd amount to introducing a new last-staff-to-bottom-margin-spacing and leaving bottom-system-spacing as is, or - functionally equivalent, but somehow irritatingly - shifting the attachment point of bottom-system-spacing to the bottom of the markup and adding last-staff-to-top-of-markup-spacing. Personally, I think we should add a new variable to control the spacing between a markup and the bottom margin. We could call it bottom-markup-spacing for now @ Mark: is the latter what you meant with your idea from above? Cheers, Alexander ___ lilypond-devel mailing list lilypond-devel@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
