Re: alpha test, horizontal spacing
Hi Ralph
you wrote Wednesday, February 16, 2011 2:34 PM
On Sat, Feb 12, 2011 at 6:04 AM, Jan Warchoł
lemniskata.bernoulli...@gmail.com wrote:
I think i have an idea how to explain this bug.
I suppose it happens because LilyPond is not aware that the dot
is in
voiceTwo context (and therefore lower than usual).
compile this:
{ g'4.*1/32 d''!32 g'4.*1/32 e''!32 }
{ \voiceTwo g'4.*1/32 \voiceOne d''!32 \voiceTwo g'4.*1/32
\voiceOne e''!32
}
In the upper line, the first accidental (on d'') is too low to
move
left (it would collide with the dot). The second accidental (on
e'')
is high enough to be moved over dot. Everything fine here.
Now in the second line the music is the same except that dotted
notes
are in lower voice. This makes the dots move down, they are a
whole
staffspace lower. However, Lily fails to notice that, and
engraves the
naturals exactly like in the upper line.
What's the status of this? I cannot find an issue on the tracker.
Did I miss
something?
A tracker entry should be made using the example and description
that Jan provided above. I'd rate it low.
Trevor
___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: alpha test, horizontal spacing
On Sat, Feb 12, 2011 at 6:04 AM, Jan Warchoł
lemniskata.bernoulli...@gmail.com wrote:
2011/2/12 Trevor Daniels t.dani...@treda.co.uk:
Jan Warchoł wrote Saturday, February 12, 2011 9:25 AM
I agree too, but in my opinion it's a less important problem than the
one marked in red in the attachment. (However, it was present in
2.12.3 too).
The natural on c is perhaps moved because of the dot on f, but i don't
think it should be moved this way.
Agreed. Although two almost identical situations are typeset correctly
in the same example, with the accidental sliding neatly over the dot.
This must be a bug, so copying to Bug list for bug squad to process.
I think i have an idea how to explain this bug.
I suppose it happens because LilyPond is not aware that the dot is in
voiceTwo context (and therefore lower than usual).
compile this:
{ g'4.*1/32 d''!32 g'4.*1/32 e''!32 }
{ \voiceTwo g'4.*1/32 \voiceOne d''!32 \voiceTwo g'4.*1/32 \voiceOne e''!32
}
In the upper line, the first accidental (on d'') is too low to move
left (it would collide with the dot). The second accidental (on e'')
is high enough to be moved over dot. Everything fine here.
Now in the second line the music is the same except that dotted notes
are in lower voice. This makes the dots move down, they are a whole
staffspace lower. However, Lily fails to notice that, and engraves the
naturals exactly like in the upper line.
cheers,
Janek
___
bug-lilypond mailing list
bug-lilyp...@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-lilypond
What's the status of this? I cannot find an issue on the tracker. Did I miss
something?
Ralph
___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: alpha test, horizontal spacing
2011/2/10 Trevor Daniels t.dani...@treda.co.uk: Keith OHara wrote Thursday, February 10, 2011 3:19 AM It is looking better now in 2.13.49. This two-bar example contains several difficult music-engraving issues, especially if I include the enharmonic spellings and key cancellation from the original edition. I think the release candidate does a decent job. Yes, although I dislike the excessive overlap of the ledger line and note with the bar line at the end of the first bar. 2.12 was better in that respect. I agree too, but in my opinion it's a less important problem than the one marked in red in the attachment. (However, it was present in 2.12.3 too). The natural on c is perhaps moved because of the dot on f, but i don't think it should be moved this way. cheers, Janek attachment: why so much space.PNG___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: alpha test, horizontal spacing
Jan Warchoł wrote Saturday, February 12, 2011 9:25 AM I agree too, but in my opinion it's a less important problem than the one marked in red in the attachment. (However, it was present in 2.12.3 too). The natural on c is perhaps moved because of the dot on f, but i don't think it should be moved this way. Agreed. Although two almost identical situations are typeset correctly in the same example, with the accidental sliding neatly over the dot. This must be a bug, so copying to Bug list for bug squad to process. Trevor attachment: why so much space.PNG___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: alpha test, horizontal spacing
2011/2/12 Trevor Daniels t.dani...@treda.co.uk:
Jan Warchoł wrote Saturday, February 12, 2011 9:25 AM
I agree too, but in my opinion it's a less important problem than the
one marked in red in the attachment. (However, it was present in
2.12.3 too).
The natural on c is perhaps moved because of the dot on f, but i don't
think it should be moved this way.
Agreed. Although two almost identical situations are typeset correctly
in the same example, with the accidental sliding neatly over the dot.
This must be a bug, so copying to Bug list for bug squad to process.
I think i have an idea how to explain this bug.
I suppose it happens because LilyPond is not aware that the dot is in
voiceTwo context (and therefore lower than usual).
compile this:
{ g'4.*1/32 d''!32 g'4.*1/32 e''!32 }
{ \voiceTwo g'4.*1/32 \voiceOne d''!32 \voiceTwo g'4.*1/32 \voiceOne e''!32 }
In the upper line, the first accidental (on d'') is too low to move
left (it would collide with the dot). The second accidental (on e'')
is high enough to be moved over dot. Everything fine here.
Now in the second line the music is the same except that dotted notes
are in lower voice. This makes the dots move down, they are a whole
staffspace lower. However, Lily fails to notice that, and engraves the
naturals exactly like in the upper line.
cheers,
Janek
___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: alpha test, horizontal spacing
Keith OHara wrote Thursday, February 10, 2011 3:19 AM On Mon, 27 Sep 2010 21:30:03 +0100 Gerard McConnell wrote: On Mon, Sep 27, 2010 at 7:56 PM, Keith E OHara k-ohara5...@oco.net wrote: So I favor less aggressive tucking of noteheads under other noteheads and their attached accidentals, if that is an option. Other opinions? I agree that in the examples you gave the accidentals look a lot better in the 2.12 versions. It is looking better now in 2.13.49. This two-bar example contains several difficult music-engraving issues, especially if I include the enharmonic spellings and key cancellation from the original edition. I think the release candidate does a decent job. Yes, although I dislike the excessive overlap of the ledger line and note with the bar line at the end of the first bar. 2.12 was better in that respect. Trevor ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
RE: alpha test, horizontal spacing
-Original Message- From: lilypond-user-bounces+james.lowe=datacore@gnu.org [mailto:lilypond-user-bounces+james.lowe=datacore@gnu.org] On Behalf Of Trevor Daniels Sent: 10 February 2011 09:37 To: lilypond-user@gnu.org; Keith OHara Subject: Re: alpha test, horizontal spacing Keith OHara wrote Thursday, February 10, 2011 3:19 AM It is looking better now in 2.13.49. This two-bar example contains several difficult music-engraving issues, especially if I include the enharmonic spellings and key cancellation from the original edition. I think the release candidate does a decent job. Yes, although I dislike the excessive overlap of the ledger line and note with the bar line at the end of the first bar. 2.12 was better in that respect. I agree with Trevor. James ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: alpha test, horizontal spacing
On Thu, 10 Feb 2011 01:36:45 -0800, Trevor Daniels t.dani...@treda.co.uk wrote: Keith OHara wrote Thursday, February 10, 2011 3:19 AM It is looking better now in 2.13.49. This two-bar example contains several difficult music-engraving issues, especially if I include the enharmonic spellings and key cancellation from the original edition. I think the release candidate does a decent job. Yes, although I dislike the excessive overlap of the ledger line and note with the bar line at the end of the first bar. 2.12 was better in that respect. That overlap (seen only with tight spacing) bothers me as well. The re-fix to lyrics spacing under melismata put the clearance over bar lines /almost/ back to what it was in 2.12.3, but one regtest with lyrics passing close to a bar line broke if I increased the clearance any more (without doing extreme things to lyrics). This is noted as part of issue 1229. I hope we can just increase the clearance around all things in 'non-musical' columns. We would need to adjust a couple reg tests to accommodate this, but still test what we really care about. -Keith ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: alpha test, horizontal spacing
On Mon, 27 Sep 2010 21:30:03 +0100 Gerard McConnell wrote: On Mon, Sep 27, 2010 at 7:56 PM, Keith E OHara k-ohara5...@oco.net wrote: So I favor less aggressive tucking of noteheads under other noteheads and their attached accidentals, if that is an option. Other opinions? I agree that in the examples you gave the accidentals look a lot better in the 2.12 versions. It is looking better now in 2.13.49. This two-bar example contains several difficult music-engraving issues, especially if I include the enharmonic spellings and key cancellation from the original edition. I think the release candidate does a decent job. -Keithattachment: C12_3.pngattachment: C13_40.pngattachment: C13_49.png C.ly Description: Binary data ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: alpha test, horizontal spacing
I agree that in the examples you gave the accidentals look a lot better in the 2.12 versions. On Mon, Sep 27, 2010 at 7:56 PM, Keith E OHara k-ohara5...@oco.net wrote: In First impressions of alpha test I wrote: On Fri, 24 Sep 2010 10:41:24 -0700, Joe Neeman joenee...@gmail.com wrote: Do you consider this desirable? Personally, I have a neutral opinion on the aggressive tucking. Well, opinions change over time. It is a subtle thing, but I think the old naive spacing around accidentals makes an easier-to-read page. Here are two dense measures of Debussy that are a little difficult to space. Moving the notes over the clef-change is a good thing, of course. The stem-accidental collisions do not occur unless the beam crosses staffs, even if it is kneed, so they might be considered part of the cross-staff issues. The spacing of the first three 16ths is probably a cross-staff artifact as well. However, stems of cross-staff beams will always be special cases in collision resolution, so they can cross a long hairpin crescendo for example. So I suggest that keeping accidentals clear of other note columns might be wisest. More simply, in the last three 16th notes (demisemiquavers) in the first measure, I want the accidental to give me a bit of extra space for readability. I was able to create a small example showing a case where notes with an accidental in between were actually spaced closer together. (I imagined the new spacing engine getting a little too excited: can I fit under the neighboring accidental? Yes! Oh boy lets slide these together!!) So I favor less aggressive tucking of noteheads under other noteheads and their attached accidentals, if that is an option. Other opinions? -- Keith ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
