Re: RFC: rethink horizontal alignment of mid-staff bar numbers

[Jonas Hahnfeld]

Am Sonntag, den 15.11.2020, 14:27 +0000 schrieb Kevin Barry:
> On Sun, Nov 15, 2020 at 01:37:34PM +0000, Graham King wrote:
> > I think Gould's positioning looks _slightly_ better, except at
> > line-beginnings where I definitely prefer lilypond's.  Moreover, the
> > position immediately after a bar line is heavily-contested
> > real-estate, as your examples make clear.  Therefore it would be good
> > to retain the option to preserve the status quo, especially where
> > convert-ly might otherwise cause skyline changes to existing scores.
> Thank you for your input!
> 
> Jean's code makes it possible to restore LilyPond's current behaviour
> with a single override:
> \override Score.BarNumber.self-alignment-X = #1
> The examples in the pdf differ only in that value:
> - LilyPond: 1
> - This MR: 0
> - Gould: 1
> - Even farther to the right: 1.55 (I'm not sure how Jean Abou chose that
>   value)
> So, at the very least, the added code will make it easier for users to
> choose their preferred alignment. If it turns out that most people
> prefer to keep LilyPond's current behaviour I will still submit a merge
> request for Jean Abou's alignment code, just with a default value that
> preserves current behaviour.

Without chiming in on the topic itself, I'd like to disagree with the
above statement or at least clarify it: Overriding self-alignment-X
works with today's releases of LilyPond and probably did for years.
There's no added code that makes this work.
The aim of the merge request is to change the alignment of mid-staff
bar numbers. They are not shown by default and in a different message
you wrote:

> Those are included in the examples purely for the sake of completeness.
> Gould has nothing to say about such bar numbers and I would surprised if
> any scores included them.

So could you please clarify what you are aiming to change going
forward: The alignment of all bar numbers, only those mid-staff or
something else? Note that for the first, the relevant change would be
in scm/define-grobs.scm and there would be no need at all for the
callback infrastructure added in the merge request.

Jonas

> I appreciate that you have given a nuanced response. Practically
> speaking, the vast majority of scores only have bar numbers at the
> beginning of a line, so I will simplistically categorise your response
> as in favour of keeping LilyPond's current behaviour.
> 
> Kevin

signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part