|
From: | address@hidden |
Subject: | Re: Allows minimum-length to work for end-of-line spanners. (issue 7453046) |
Date: | Sun, 10 Mar 2013 01:32:32 +0100 |
On 9 mars 2013, at 09:51, address@hidden wrote:
The definition of "allow" in the New Oxford American Dictionary is "give the necessary time or opportunity for." This patch gives spanners the opportunity to have minimum length work at the end of the line. Additional messing with springs and rods is because minimum-length is currently implemented by four different interfaces (lyric-hyphen, multi-measure-rest, ottava-bracket and spanner) and is also looked up in lyric-extender in a way that does not correspond to its docstring. So, certain uses of minimum length require the additional override whereas others don't. I do not think this is ideal, which is why I proposed a few weeks ago standardizing property names across interfaces. It seems like the issues you are raising above and below have less to do with this patch and more to do with the multiple implementation of minimum-length and the use of the springs-and-rods property.
I do not have a problem with the current need to set the springs-and-rods separately. If you do, please file an issue then to fix this as well as the following snippets in the Documentation: -) http://lilypond.org/doc/v2.17/Documentation/notation/spanners.html, specifically "For some layout objects, the minimum-length property becomes effective only if the set-spacing-rodsprocedure is called explicitly. To do this, the springs-and-rods property should be set to ly:spanner::set-spacing-rods. For example, the minimum length of a glissando has no effect unless the springs-and-rodsproperty is set."
I'm positive it would because of the way that minimum-length is multiply defined. That is why this patch is intended for the "some layout objects" discussed above like the TextSpanner. I agree that the multiple use of the minimum-length property should be changed, but this seems like the business of another patch. If the regtest is bothering you that much, I can just eliminate it from this patch. It won't change the better functionality of this patch and will just stop shedding light on the issue I'm discussing above. But that does not seem like a good solution, nor does setting springs-and-rods with a default property. Cheers, MS |
[Prev in Thread] | Current Thread | [Next in Thread] |