On 2020-01-16 4:01 pm, Paolo Prete wrote:
> This gives a clearer overview, thanks, but I would not use it, even if
> produces the wanted result.
Sorry if I implied otherwise, but I thought I was clear that this code
was not intended for practical use. This is only test code to
demonstrate the underlying mechanisms are actually working properly. I
wanted to address what I consider a flawed premise that things are
I never said that Robin's procedure is broken, sorry.
I said that it doesn't work (considering the target question of these last two threads), given that it doesn't give an offset on the result.
Nor I'm saying that Lilypond has broken stuff for these features. Instead, it works very well for offsetting the result with both avoid-collisions and don't-avoid-collisions
I said (and I confirm) that *\offset Y-offset is broken*. This command should be blacklisted, given that it leads to random results.
than \override Y-offset, while using the same logic (which
> distance from a reference point, and not *offset the result*). So: I
> it's better to use a ruler from the middle of the staff.
> No other way, if you want to preserve the avoid-collision algo.
There is no "offset the result" apart from extra-offset.
You can actually do it with the *ruler* method that I explained before.
The problem is that all this it's pretty uncomfortable.
You pick up a ruler, set its ref point to the grob's ref point; calculate the distance, add the offset to the distance and then apply the avoid-collision-property you want.
-- Aaron Hill