On 1/13/11 5:34 PM, "Keith OHara" <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Thu, 13 Jan 2011 16:09:50 -0800, Carl Sorensen <[email protected]> wrote: > >> I'm not sure this qualifies as a regression, because I'm not sure that we >> *intended* the behavior that is observed in 2.12.3. >> > I wasn't sure it would either, but I should have brought it up as a bug so we > can collectively decide. I agree. And the documented procedure is to call it a regression until some developer says it's not. So both you and I are following the correct protocol. > >> If the only way to get bad spacing is to put more music on a line than >> LilyPond wants to put on a line (i.e. by forcing it with \noBreak), then it >> seems to me that the user is pushing LilyPond beyond the planned behavior. >> > Oops; should have marked then non-essential. The noBreaks are in there so we > can compare versions without confusion of different line breaking or wondering > if an artificial ragged-right caused the trouble. Actually, I think it's the artificial \noBreak that causes the trouble. IMO it's better to use ragged-right and \break so that we can see the ideal spacing that LilyPond is trying to use. Then, if we want to show a problem that occurs in tighter spacing, go ahead and demonstrate it (perhaps even on a different line through the use of \noBreak). Thanks, Carl _______________________________________________ bug-lilypond mailing list [email protected] http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-lilypond
