On Saturday 01 September 2007 00:35, Han-Wen Nienhuys wrote: > 2007/8/31, Joe Neeman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > > On Friday 31 August 2007 13:23, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > > Issue 430: Cross-staff beam craziness (when down-markup combines with > > > down-articulation) > > > http://code.google.com/p/lilypond/issues/detail?id=430 > > > > > > Comment #2 by hanwenn: > > > Hi Joe, > > > > > > can you review my patch for this fix? > > > > My preferred way for dealing with these cyclic dependency issues is to > > mark something cross-staff. If a grob has the cross-staff property set to > > true, it gets ignored for all pure-height calculations, so it's a good > > way to break this sort of cycle (plus, it's encapsulated in its own grob > > property). > > Yes, but wouldn't this result in staves colliding if the script is > really large? The advantage of doing it with Stem direction is that > you break the cycle at the exact point where unnecessary information > is requested.
Yeah, good point. > Of course, it would be best if we could have that idea > encapsulated in a property by itself. One extreme idea could be to > calculate up and down extents separately, perhaps with a > > Y-extent -> (up-extent , down-extent) > > dependency, which we would have just for Stem for now. That's an intriguing idea, but I think we can keep it on the back burner just in case we need it in the future. Joe _______________________________________________ bug-lilypond mailing list [email protected] http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-lilypond
