[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: horizontal spacing regression
From: |
Jan Warchoł |
Subject: |
Re: horizontal spacing regression |
Date: |
Sat, 15 Jan 2011 14:23:51 +0100 |
2011/1/15 Trevor Daniels <address@hidden>
>
> Jan Warchoł wrote Saturday, January 15, 2011 9:21 AM
>
>
> > 2011/1/14 Keith OHara <address@hidden>:
> >> The extra-spacing-height seems to do just the right thing. True, it gives
> >> no extra space when the interval is larger {c be be f } but neither did
> >> 2.12.3 and I think we don't need it there.
> >
> > No, in my opinion it's really bad!
> > I mean, this
> >
> > \version "2.13.45"
> > {
> > \override Accidental #'extra-spacing-height = #'(-0.5 . 0.5)
> > \repeat unfold 12 {f'8 bes' d'' f'' \noBreak }
> > }
> >
> > looks to my eye worse than this:
> >
> >\version "2.13.45"
> > {
> > \repeat unfold 12 {f'8 bes' d'' f'' \noBreak }
> > }
> >
> > I'd say that the optimal layout would be somewhere in between.
>
> I agree somewhere inbeween would be optimal. Perhaps something
> like this (the override is just a frig to demonstrate my
> preferred positioning, not a solution, of course):
>
> {
> \repeat unfold 6 {
> \once \override NoteHead #'X-extent = #'(0 . 1.8)
> f'8 bes' d'' f'' \noBreak
> f'8 bes' d'' f'' \noBreak
> }
> }
I'd go for as small as NoteHead #'X-extent = #'(0 . 1.5) .
> I realise this is not possible to achieve without
> getting into the spacing code, though. And this is
> taking it beyond solving the regression, so it
> should be a separate issue for 2.15.
+1
Janek
- Re: horizontal spacing regression, (continued)
Re: horizontal spacing regression, Phil Holmes, 2011/01/14
Re: horizontal spacing regression, Keith OHara, 2011/01/14