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

[Mark Knoop]

At 15:01 on 15 Nov 2020, Joram Noeck wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I like the change in the bar number alignment. I have some comments to
> your proposal. (The current solution has similar issues, so most of
> these are not speaking against proposed changes.)
>
> The -> denotes the solution for which that is an argument.
>
> 1. putting the bar number over the measure it belongs just makes sense
> (-> Gould)
>
> 2. The end of a measure is typically less crowded so middle-of-line bar
> numbers need less vertical shifts for collision avoidance which looks
> better. The new implementation looks irregular and jumpy (-> current)
>
> 3. In particular at the start of a line, the number is moved up by every
> treble clef, i.e. we have an exception by collision avoidance in the
> most common case. (-> current or MR)
>
> 4. Shifting it further right than left aligned is too much and breaks
> the visual connection between bar line and bar number (-> not further)
>
> 5. Bar numbers on the right margin look odd. They should definitely be
> right aligned in that position (if the user turns them on at all)
>
>
> Therefore, I would center-align it like your MR does for begin-of-line
> and middle-of-line positions, but not at the end of a line.
>
> Cheers,
> Joram

This is a great evaluation. There are advantages and disadvantages to each 
alignment choice. Regardless of what ends up as the default, it seems clear 
that there is a good use case for different alignment at start, middle and 
end-of-line.

Might it be possible that this can be set somewhat like:

\override Score.BarNumber.self-alignment-X = #(1 0 -1)

where the list applies different values to each position?

A call such as:

\override Score.BarNumber.self-alignment-X = #1

would be equivalent to

\override Score.BarNumber.self-alignment-X = #(1 1 1)

--
Mark Knoop