Thanks for the report; I've found a bug related to the combination of the
new placement and \fatText. The bug report would be more useful, though, if
you stated clearly what you expect to happen. For example, in your example
file, you can add comments like
\fatText
% the markup on the following note is too low
c_"text"
This makes it _much_ easier to track down problems. For example, how did
\fatText use to work that is different from how it works now? Based on your
example, I don't know what the problem is.
On 12/13/06, Luc <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
%{
outside staff stuff
I'm not sure about the new collision avoiding strategy for text
and text
scripts.
Also, the \fatText option seems not to work the way it used.
%}
\version "2.11.1" %{ on Windows XP Home %}
\paper {ragged-right=##t}
notes={c d e f}
{
<<
\context Voice = "1" { \clef "G_8" }
\context Voice = "1" { \notes \notes \notes \notes \notes
\notes }
\context Voice = "1" {
\emptyText
s \p
s \sf
s \pp
s \sf
\fatText
s \p
s \sf
s \ppp
s \fp
\emptyText
s s s s
s -"is"
s -"this"
s -"ok"
s -"?"
\fatText
s s s s
s -"is"
s -"this"
s -"ok"
s -"?"
}
>>
}
_______________________________________________
bug-lilypond mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-lilypond
_______________________________________________
bug-lilypond mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-lilypond
