[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
comments on CVS from 2002-07-14 15:58 (long)
From: |
Han-Wen Nienhuys |
Subject: |
comments on CVS from 2002-07-14 15:58 (long) |
Date: |
Mon, 15 Jul 2002 19:35:07 +0200 |
address@hidden writes:
>
> I'm baack!
coooool!
Some quick replies.
>
> . Section 3.3, fourth example
>
> The key change from two sharps to three flats doesn't look OK
> (I check this with the dvi output at 600dpi): The two flats are
> too close together.
yeah, something should be done about the padding in general, right
now, each acc is represented by a single box, flats & naturals should
have two and three respectively. Added some more padding in between.
> . Section 3.8, first example
>
> The arpeggio line doesn't look good. Its wiggles are too big.
Too wide or too tall?
> I don't know whether the appearance of the beam knees is a bug
> (since at one place the stem sits on the wrong side of the note)
> or whether some fine tuning is missing; I'm just reporting here
> that they look wierd.
Opps. They sure look strange, yes, but I added some fixes to CVS for
this yesterday. I'll have a look.
> The slur between the grace note and the main note is definitely
> buggy; close inspection shows that one end isn't rounded but ends
> needle-like.
yep. Noted.
> The last three slurs in the upper stave are not correct. They are
> notated with `( ... )' but they look like being written with `~'.
> I think such slurs should start and end exactly above the stems.
Slurs suck, post 1.6.
> It is possibly better to center the `3' (denoting a triplet)
> exactly over the middle stem.
I am not sure. I tried looked at some examples, and often the 3 is
also above the exact center or above the note head. I agree that this
looks goofy though.
> The trill sign is too big in comparison to the notes.
Still?! (It's already a lot smaller than in 1.4)
> The rests in the fourth bar should be moved up automatically -- we
> are still using \VoiceOne, aren't we? The same should be done
> for the half rest in the left hand.
Ours refs aren't clear. We talked with a guy from Universal Edition
who maintained that rests should not be moved at all except to
prevent a collision. OTOH, he might have been talking about single
voice music (like in beams, as you note below).
> To improve readability I suggest that you use @smallexample for
> the code fragment.
good idea. The examples take too much place, I think. I added the
option smallverbatim to lilypond-book.
> . Section 3.9, first example
>
> According to the code, I expect the treble clef in the left hand
> to be inserted in front of the lower staff's first note, but it
> appears at the beginning immediately after the 3/8 sign,
> overlapping with the beams. Looks like a bug...
well, it's sort of experimental. It took a lot of effort to move the
clef under the notes in the upper staff. Noted.
> The default vertical extension of the small slurs is too big. I
> don't know (yet) how this is handled by LilyPond, but I assume
> that the height of a slur is dependent on the length, right?
> Which formula is used?
Slurs suck (see above). The the control points of the slur are
calculated as
(0,0),(0,h),(w-h,h),(w,0)
where h = h_infinity * F (x * r_0 / h_infinity) and F (x) = 2/pi *
atan (pi x/2). See bezier-bow.cc
> . Section 3.10.2
>
> The staff lines extend stick out slightly at the right of the
> final bar. Either the metrics of this bar line type is not
> correct, or there is a positioning error in LilyPond.
That is curious. Are you sure it is not a rounding error of the
viewing software?
> . Section 4.5.1, second example
>
> This must be a bug. If I write [f'8 r16 f' g' a'], I should get
> this:
>
> -----------
> | -----
> | 7 | | |
> x 7 x x x
>
> not this:
>
> -----------
> | --------
> | 7 | | |
> x 7 x x x
>
> The latter form may be used in modern music (?), but it shouldn't
> be the default.
Can you formalize that for me? Do you want the beams to be connected
as if there were no rest?
> . Section 4.8.5, first example
>
> Is a quick notation available to give a note more horizontal
> space? Something like `c\wwide\ppp c\wide\pp' comes to my mind...
Nope.
> . Section 4.9.4
>
> The code
>
> \repeat tremolo 4 { c'16 d'16 }
>
> gives the following warning:
>
> Interpreting music...
> programming error: Skipped something ?! (Continuing; cross thumbs)
>
> (the last line is repeated 3 times).
>
> Besides that, the result is ugly (beam too short). I think this
> is another place where the width of a graphical element (the
> tremolo beam) isn't taken into account for computation of the
> spacing. BTW, selecting `8' for the repeat counter two other
> bugs show up: An incorrect (or rather inappropriate) warning
> appears
>
> warning: beam has less than two visible stems:
> \repeat "tremolo" 8 { c'16 d'16 }
>
> and the tremolo beam's vertical position is far too high.
Tremolo beams are low on my priority list. I know that the spacing is
weird (it's even documented :^). If anyone desperately needs them to
be correct, I am sure I will hear about it.
> . \clef "bass_8" is ugly. The `8' glyph is too big and should be
> below the lowest staff line.
I made it smaller, and added the staff to the support of the 8.
> Keep going!
yeah, you too! :)
--
Han-Wen Nienhuys | address@hidden | http://www.cs.uu.nl/~hanwen/
- comments on CVS from 2002-07-14 15:58 (long), Werner LEMBERG, 2002/07/15
- comments on CVS from 2002-07-14 15:58 (long),
Han-Wen Nienhuys <=
- Re: comments on CVS from 2002-07-14 15:58 (long), Chris Jackson, 2002/07/16
- Re: comments on CVS from 2002-07-14 15:58 (long), Werner LEMBERG, 2002/07/17
- Re: comments on CVS from 2002-07-14 15:58 (long), Mats Bengtsson, 2002/07/25
- Re: comments on CVS from 2002-07-14 15:58 (long), Werner LEMBERG, 2002/07/26
- Re: comments on CVS from 2002-07-14 15:58 (long), Mats Bengtsson, 2002/07/26
comments on CVS from 2002-07-14 15:58 (long), Han-Wen Nienhuys, 2002/07/15
comments on CVS from 2002-07-14 15:58 (long), Han-Wen Nienhuys, 2002/07/15