[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Creates more possibilities for vertical and horizontal skyline funct
|
From: |
address@hidden |
|
Subject: |
Re: Creates more possibilities for vertical and horizontal skyline functions. (issue 7516048) |
|
Date: |
Sat, 16 Mar 2013 08:36:30 +0100 |
On 16 mars 2013, at 04:26, address@hidden wrote:
> good enough
>
>
> https://codereview.appspot.com/7516048/diff/1/scm/define-grobs.scm
> File scm/define-grobs.scm (right):
>
> https://codereview.appspot.com/7516048/diff/1/scm/define-grobs.scm#newcode312
> scm/define-grobs.scm:312: (vertical-skylines .
> ,grob::simple-vertical-skylines-from-y-extent)
> I'm confused, because the fall-back for vertical-skylines seems to do
> exactly the same thing for Spanners, and it looks like this is a
> Spanner.
>
That's only in the pure equivalent. The unpure function doesn't have this.
> https://codereview.appspot.com/7516048/diff/1/scm/define-grobs.scm#newcode2237
> scm/define-grobs.scm:2237: (horizontal-skylines .
> ,grob::simple-horizontal-skylines-from-x-extent)
> The fall-back would be the same if this Grob were marked cross-staff =
> #t Would it be more smarter to mark this and similar grobs cross-staff
> ?
Running regtests.
Cheers,
MS