[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: Distance of a grob from its reference point

From: Paolo Prete
Subject: Re: Distance of a grob from its reference point
Date: Thu, 16 Jan 2020 00:16:00 +0100

I don't mean that with *broken*. I mean that it's unusable, given that the values you put inside this function don't correspond to anything that you can measure. Then, pretty random values.

Please note that this doesn't happen with \override SomeGrob.X/Y-offset. In that case, you can measure the offset with a ruler (in a very uncomfortable way, though, given that you have to offset the ruler as well with the ref point of the grob).


On Wed, Jan 15, 2020 at 11:55 PM Carl Sorensen <address@hidden> wrote:



From: Paolo Prete <address@hidden>
Date: Wednesday, January 15, 2020 at 2:30 PM
To: Carl Sorensen <address@hidden>
Cc: Lilypond-User Mailing List <address@hidden>
Subject: Re: Distance of a grob from its reference point


Then, do you agree that this causes that the \offset command is broken at least for the X/Y-offset properties of any grob?


It depends on what you mean by “broken”.  If you mean it doesn’t give an offset from what the final position would be without the \offset command, yes, it’s broken for Y-offset of any grob whose Y-offset is a an unpure-pure container.


Please correct me if I'm wrong. I would be very happy to see a solution or an alternative for making *fine tuning* while preserving the avoid-collisions algo.

In addition, I wonder if is there a way to get the final positioning (and then the actual distance from the reference point) by overriding some stuff in the .scm code. This is how I generated the html file instead of the svg one.

There is not, as far as I know.




reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]