On Fri, 14 Jan 2011 03:34:33 -0800, Carl Sorensen <[email protected]> wrote:
I agree in general, but the question is "do we *want* to restore the old behavior?" We have a regtest that demonstrates the new behavior. When we try to restore the old behavior in the case at hand, we also break one instance in the regtest.
This regtest is a series of cases, and one case on the borderline changed, so it might not be considered a break in a regtest.
I guess that if we can find a value of extra-spacing-height that will restore the old behavior in the case at hand, and not break the regtest, it's the best of both worlds.
I could not reach the best of both worlds. The reg-test (image attached) stops
tucking the ceses under the feses (just left of the bar) when we add as little
as 0.1 staff-space to the the flats. The rising notes (other image) remain
tucked until we add 0.4 staff-space to the flats.
I looked into removing some extra-spacing-height from the Dots, now [-0.5 ,
0.5], but we need most all of that to avoid tucking things like {c4... e}.
(Based on behavior, the extent has origin at the notehead center height as
distinct from the dots height when they are shifted to avoid staff lines.)
--
Keith<<attachment: spacing-horizontal-skyline.preview.png>>
<<attachment: 1474.png>>
_______________________________________________ bug-lilypond mailing list [email protected] http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-lilypond
