On 8/27/11 6:45 AM, "Jan Nieuwenhuizen" wrote:
> Janek Warchoł writes:
>
>>> However, almost always it is Much Better (TM) to use the benchmarking
>>> approach: find how the great masters solved the situation and program
>>> LilyPond to do that. Is this documented somewhere, by the way?
>>
>>
Janek Warchoł writes:
>> However, almost always it is Much Better (TM) to use the benchmarking
>> approach: find how the great masters solved the situation and program
>> LilyPond to do that. Is this documented somewhere, by the way?
>
> Sorry, i don't understand: do you say that we should use la
2011/8/23 Jan Nieuwenhuizen :
> To pull that to a meta-level: sometimes it makes sense to program
> LilyPond to do that which is obvious.
>
> However, almost always it is Much Better (TM) to use the benchmarking
> approach: find how the great masters solved the situation and program
> LilyPond to d
2011/8/22 Han-Wen Nienhuys :
> 2011/8/22 Janek Warchoł :
>> I wholeheartedly disagree, i think that this issue isn't negligible
>> (or did i misunderstood you, Han-Wen?).
>
> My impression is that the patch was not actually changing output.
> If it was intended to, I couldn't tell from a read of th
Mike Solomon ufl.edu> writes:
> I maintain that the best solution is:
> \override Staff.Accidental #'layer = #-100
> \override Staff.LedgerLineSpanner #'layer = #-101
> \override Staff.Accidental #'whiteout = ##t
>
> Which is a trivial change to engravers-init.ly. I'll post a patch later
> to
Han-Wen Nienhuys writes:
> I think the whole approach of whiting is flawed: what if
To pull that to a meta-level: sometimes it makes sense to program
LilyPond to do that which is obvious.
However, almost always it is Much Better (TM) to use the benchmarking
approach: find how the great masters s
On Tue, Aug 23, 2011 at 11:05 AM, Mike Solomon wrote:
>>>
>>> Which is a trivial change to engravers-init.ly. I'll post a patch later
>>> today unless anyone sees a better alternative.
>>
>> this will generate square endings on the ledgers.
>
> True.
> Question - is there any way to take a glyph
On Aug 23, 2011, at 4:03 PM, Han-Wen Nienhuys wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 23, 2011 at 3:59 AM, Mike Solomon wrote:
>> \override Staff.Accidental #'layer = #-100
>> \override Staff.LedgerLineSpanner #'layer = #-101
>> \override Staff.Accidental #'whiteout = ##t
>>
>>
>> }
>>
>> Which is a trivial cha
On Tue, Aug 23, 2011 at 3:59 AM, Mike Solomon wrote:
> \override Staff.Accidental #'layer = #-100
> \override Staff.LedgerLineSpanner #'layer = #-101
> \override Staff.Accidental #'whiteout = ##t
>
>
> }
>
> Which is a trivial change to engravers-init.ly. I'll post a patch later
> today unless
Hey all,
My patch did change output (it prevented duplicate ledger lines), although I
did not spot the result that Janek sees.
The old patch is also flawed, in that it only changes the ledger line directly
next to the accidental. The entire bounding box of the accidental should,
however, be t
2011/8/22 Janek Warchoł :
> I wholeheartedly disagree, i think that this issue isn't negligible
> (or did i misunderstood you, Han-Wen?).
My impression is that the patch was not actually changing output.
If it was intended to, I couldn't tell from a read of the patch.
--
Han-Wen Nienhuys - han.
Hi,
i'm very interested in this, i've spotted this problem some time ago.
Why is this Rietveld issue marked as closed?
I'm adding a link in T issue 706
http://code.google.com/p/lilypond/issues/detail?id=706
I've tried it and it ate some ledger lines, but maybe i have dirty
tree. Try this
{ 2 <
On Aug 18, 2011, at 2:51 PM, Han-Wen Nienhuys wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 18, 2011 at 9:27 AM, wrote:
>> I figured not making a regtest just cuz there will already be little
>> changes to several regtests. But, I can certainly add one.
>>
>> Cheers,
>> MS
>>
>>
>> http://codereview.appspot.com/4898
On Thu, Aug 18, 2011 at 9:27 AM, wrote:
> I figured not making a regtest just cuz there will already be little
> changes to several regtests. But, I can certainly add one.
>
> Cheers,
> MS
>
>
> http://codereview.appspot.com/4898060/diff/1/lily/ledger-line-spanner.cc
> File lily/ledger-line-span
I figured not making a regtest just cuz there will already be little
changes to several regtests. But, I can certainly add one.
Cheers,
MS
http://codereview.appspot.com/4898060/diff/1/lily/ledger-line-spanner.cc
File lily/ledger-line-spanner.cc (right):
http://codereview.appspot.com/4898060/d
http://codereview.appspot.com/4898060/diff/1/lily/ledger-line-spanner.cc
File lily/ledger-line-spanner.cc (right):
http://codereview.appspot.com/4898060/diff/1/lily/ledger-line-spanner.cc#newcode89
lily/ledger-line-spanner.cc:89: continue;
can't you check poss.find(max(0, lincount - *it)) ?
I d
test missing.
On Thu, Aug 18, 2011 at 8:03 AM, wrote:
> Reviewers: ,
>
> Description:
> Makes sure that ledger lines do not overlap with accidentals.
>
> Please review this at http://codereview.appspot.com/4898060/
>
> Affected files:
> M lily/ledger-line-spanner.cc
>
>
> Index: lily/ledger-lin
Reviewers: ,
Description:
Makes sure that ledger lines do not overlap with accidentals.
Please review this at http://codereview.appspot.com/4898060/
Affected files:
M lily/ledger-line-spanner.cc
Index: lily/ledger-line-spanner.cc
diff --git a/lily/ledger-line-spanner.cc b/lily/ledger-line-s
18 matches
Mail list logo
