Werner LEMBERG <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: >> * accidentals for octaves always have same x-position (unless >> maybe this eats too much x-space in chords with accidentals on >> seconds). See Fig 2. > > Interestingly, this rule isn't a very strong one in piano music, > especially if seconds occur.
Uh, I think that's exactly what Wanske says, and what I wanted to say. Maybe the 'unless' should have been in all-caps, and not inside parentheses. I think fig 2 shows this, as optimal example? > Most engravers prefer to tweak accidentals horizontally as much as > possible, dropping the octave alignment. All my examples were real > examples found in well-engraved editions of Liszt, Chopin, etc. Yes, less horizontal space -- good. >> However, I don't understand why in your chord3.png, you put the flat >> closer to the chord than the c's natural sign. See Fig 1. > > The idea is that the position of the accidentals imitate the positions > of the affected notes in the chord; this avoids that one of the three > accents is too far away. Oops. I overlooked that. I think that you may be right. > BTW, I was in doubt whether the lowest accidental can really move that > far to the right for this interval (since it still touches the note > above); it is perhaps difficult to code also. Indeed, it touches. Where the y distance one half staff space greater, it would be ok. Now I think it would be a matter of the available space, and the engraver's taste. I'd say next to impossble to code. To summarize, it looks like your algorithm is quite ok. Jan. -- Jan Nieuwenhuizen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> | GNU LilyPond - The music typesetter http://www.xs4all.nl/~jantien | http://www.lilypond.org _______________________________________________ Bug-lilypond mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-lilypond
