On Jul 27, 2011, at 12:22 PM, lilyp...@googlecode.com wrote: > Updates: > Owner: --- > Labels: -Priority-High -Patch-needs_work Priority-Medium Patch-abandoned > > Comment #6 on issue 36 by pkx1...@gmail.com: collision cresc and kneed beams > http://code.google.com/p/lilypond/issues/detail?id=36 > > From Mike: > > --snip-- > > On 2011/07/25 22:22:05, graham_percival-music.ca wrote: >> On Mon, Jul 25, 2011 at 09:17:53AM +0200, mailto:m...@apollinemike.com >> wrote: >>> >>> We may want to just fix issue 36 via something in the docs- >> ... >>> but as there is no clear way to >>> deal with these collisions, perhaps a section in the >>> documentation "Dealing with collisions" that says something to >>> the effect of "LilyPond does its best to avoid collisions >>> between objects. However, often there is more than one solution >>> available to collision avoidance - white out, moving, rotating, >>> etc.. > >> sounds good to me. That's in Learning 4.5 Collisions of objects, >> right? > >> Cheers, >> - Graham > > Yup. > I'm gonna close this Rietveld issue. Could you downgrade the priority of the > issue on the tracker to either medium or low (depending on what you think > would > be appropriate) and add the right tags that show this needs to be a > documentation suggestion (not a code base fix). > > Cheers, > MS > > --snip-- > > Are we saying this is not fixable? or just that it's a bit tough and so we > need to think again? >
Because there are numerous ways to fix this problem, and because no one way is objectively "better," and because all ways are doable via overrides and short scheme engravers, it'd be better to have a section in the docs that presents several ways to avoid the same collision rather than going down the slippery slope of instituting all these ways in LilyPond. Cheers, MS _______________________________________________ bug-lilypond mailing list bug-lilypond@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-lilypond
