On Sat, 2017-07-15 at 08:51 +0100, Richard Shann wrote:
> On Sat, 2017-07-15 at 00:40 -0700, thomasmorle...@gmail.com wrote:
> > On 2017/07/15 07:25:37, richard_rshann.plus.com wrote:
> > > On Sat, 2017-07-15 at 00:09 -0700, mailto:thomasmorle...@gmail.com
> > wrote:
> > > > I'm afraid this patch does not fix the problem as wished.
> >
> > > You give an example of multiple bass figures on a note, I'm not
> sure
> > > what you would wish to see for that case,
> >
> > In
> > <<
> > \relative c' { c1 c1 }
> > \figures { <6+>2 <6+>2 <6+>1 }
> >
> > I would expect same aligning for first and second BassFigure related
> to
> > the note.
> (understood: first and second *group* of bass figures)
>
> That would be ok, although when you have multiple figures on a note
> allowing a bit more space for them can be good sometimes. You could
> always move the whole group along by inserting a short duration note
> with no figure in the bass figures if there was a particular case
> where
> this seemed obtrusive (hacky of course).
>
> So I think you could validly object that you didn't like them being
> treated differently.
Ha! I think I was being over-generous to your case here :)
consider
<<
\relative c' { c1 c2 }
\figures { <_+>2 <6+>2 <_+>4 <4>4}
>>
In the current LilyPond the two groups of figures are aligned
differently. So, my patch constitutes an improvement to the current
situation, even though it doesn't fix this case, (which, as I said, is
not really a worry - it's quite difficult to spot).
Richard
_______________________________________________
lilypond-devel mailing list
lilypond-devel@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
