On 6 June 2010 15:11, Joe Neeman wrote:
> I can't easily push a patch from here, so perhaps someone else can apply it?
I can push later this evening, but I'd like a regression test to go
with it, if possible.
Cheers,
Neil
___
bug-lilypond mailing lis
On Sun, May 30, 2010 at 6:06 PM, Boris Shingarov wrote:
> On 05/30/2010 03:52 AM, Joe Neeman wrote:
>
>> IIRC, tight-spacing just means to place lines as close together as
>> possible (which means a tight spring and a padding of zero).
>>
>
> That's what the code in page-layout-problem seems to b
On 05/30/2010 03:52 AM, Joe Neeman wrote:
IIRC, tight-spacing just means to place lines as close together as
possible (which means a tight spring and a padding of zero).
That's what the code in page-layout-problem seems to be doing -- so I
based my patch to page-breaking on simply trying to ma
On Tue, May 18, 2010 at 10:58 AM, Boris Shingarov wrote:
> Hi Joe,
>
>
> The fact that tight-spacing ignores padding is probably a bug. Do things
work better if you change minimum_distance to (minimum_distance +
padding) in page-layout-problem.cc:286?
>>> As I had posted earl
On Mon, 2010-05-17 at 23:58 -0400, Boris Shingarov wrote:
> Hi Joe,
>
> >>> The fact that tight-spacing ignores padding is probably a bug. Do things
> >>> work better if you change minimum_distance to (minimum_distance +
> >>> padding) in page-layout-problem.cc:286?
> >>>
> >> As I had pos
Hi Joe,
The fact that tight-spacing ignores padding is probably a bug. Do things
work better if you change minimum_distance to (minimum_distance +
padding) in page-layout-problem.cc:286?
As I had posted earlier, changing to (minimum_distance+padding) does
fix exactly the issue I was ref
On Tue, 2010-01-26 at 12:58 -0500, Boris Shingarov wrote:
> Quoting Joe Neeman :
>
> > The fact that tight-spacing ignores padding is probably a bug. Do things
> > work better if you change minimum_distance to (minimum_distance +
> > padding) in page-layout-problem.cc:286?
>
> As I had posted ear
On Tue, 2010-01-26 at 12:47 -0500, Boris Shingarov wrote:
> Quoting Joe Neeman :
>
> > > > Thanks for finding this. next-space is deprecated, so this is a bug.
> > > What's the correct fix then? Remove the whole mention of next-space in
> > > the Page Spacer altogether?
> > Yes. I already made a
Quoting Joe Neeman :
The fact that tight-spacing ignores padding is probably a bug. Do things
work better if you change minimum_distance to (minimum_distance +
padding) in page-layout-problem.cc:286?
As I had posted earlier, changing to (minimum_distance+padding) does
fix exactly the issue I
Quoting Joe Neeman :
> > Thanks for finding this. next-space is deprecated, so this is a bug.
> What's the correct fix then? Remove the whole mention of next-space in
> the Page Spacer altogether?
Yes. I already made a patch for this, so don't worry about it.
Is there a public discussion pl
On Wed, 2010-01-13 at 12:37 -0500, Boris Shingarov wrote:
> Quoting Joe Neeman :
>
> > > confused by the setting of next-space (1.0 by default).
> >
> > Thanks for finding this. next-space is deprecated, so this is a bug.
>
> What's the correct fix then? Remove the whole mention of next-space
On Tue, 2010-01-12 at 17:26 +, Boris Shingarov wrote:
> When typesetting a large volume of markuplines, the Page Spacer gets
> confused by the setting of next-space (1.0 by default).
Thanks for finding this. next-space is deprecated, so this is a bug.
> It does
> take it into account when cal
When typesetting a large volume of markuplines, the Page Spacer gets
confused by the setting of next-space (1.0 by default). It does
take it into account when calculating the forces, but ignores it when
actually placing the lines on the page. This leads to horrible layout.
For example, if line he
13 matches
Mail list logo
