Jan Warchoł wrote Saturday, January 15, 2011 9:21 AM
> 2011/1/14 Keith OHara <[email protected]>: >> The extra-spacing-height seems to do just the right thing. True, it gives >> no extra space when the interval is larger {c be be f } but neither did >> 2.12.3 and I think we don't need it there. > > No, in my opinion it's really bad! > I mean, this > > \version "2.13.45" > { > \override Accidental #'extra-spacing-height = #'(-0.5 . 0.5) > \repeat unfold 12 {f'8 bes' d'' f'' \noBreak } > } > > looks to my eye worse than this: > >\version "2.13.45" > { > \repeat unfold 12 {f'8 bes' d'' f'' \noBreak } > } > > I'd say that the optimal layout would be somewhere in between. I agree somewhere inbeween would be optimal. Perhaps something like this (the override is just a frig to demonstrate my preferred positioning, not a solution, of course): { \repeat unfold 6 { \once \override NoteHead #'X-extent = #'(0 . 1.8) f'8 bes' d'' f'' \noBreak f'8 bes' d'' f'' \noBreak } } I realise this is not possible to achieve without getting into the spacing code, though. And this is taking it beyond solving the regression, so it should be a separate issue for 2.15. Trevor _______________________________________________ bug-lilypond mailing list [email protected] http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-lilypond
