Re: Uses single algorithm for side-position spacing. (issue 6827072)

[address@hidden]

On 22 déc. 2012, at 07:43, address@hidden wrote:

> 
> https://codereview.appspot.com/6827072/diff/34001/lily/axis-group-interface.cc
> File lily/axis-group-interface.cc (right):
> 
> https://codereview.appspot.com/6827072/diff/34001/lily/axis-group-interface.cc#newcode62
> lily/axis-group-interface.cc:62: return SCM_BOOL_T;
> Now the whole note-column is marked cross-staff if its stem spans
> staves.  Check if Note_column::cross_staff_extent() still makes sense

It does, because this function is a replacement for Grob::extent for 
NoteColumns.  Axis_group_interface::height, even in unpure, won't take 
cross-staff stems into account.  Here we want to do this, so we use the more 
accurate Note_column::cross_staff_extent.  It is a strange exception, 
tho...it's worth trying to get rid of it one day.

> 
> https://codereview.appspot.com/6827072/diff/34001/lily/axis-group-interface.cc#newcode258
> lily/axis-group-interface.cc:258: continue;
> This might now ignore protruding note-heads under a cross-staff beam
> when estimating system heights for page breaking.
> 

Added a line of code to make sure this doesn't happen.

The regtests checked out clean last time I checked, so if this code 
inadvertently causes NoteColumns to be ignored when they shouldn't be 
(experience dictates that someone will find something somewhere that doesn't 
work), it'll likely be an easy fix.  A git grep of cross-staff confirms this - 
there are no circumstances I can see (aside those you've identified) where 
NoteColumns' will by unduly excluded because of their cross-staffitude.

Cheers,
MS