"Chris Yate" <chrisy...@gmail.com> wrote in message news:CAHHKLrSDrG=JSZEo2FyF3gAq0K39XyJ5-B4+DhDskOqJYF7=v...@mail.gmail.com...
Hi, I've recently been discussing the issue of augementation dot
positioning on the user mailing list with Werner Lemberg and others, and I
think we've established that there's a bug.

In many easy to reproduce situations, augmentation dots are placed
incorrectly on chords.

In general, too many dots are used, which is pretty confusing in the output
(and can look ridiculous in especially busy, clustered chords).

Werner pointed me towards the "chord-dots-limit" setting, which can help.
But this is set by default to "3", which doesn't seem to make sense. It
would seem more sensible to have a default of Zero, but then required dots
tend to go missing.

I've prepared a (hopefully comprehensive) set of test cases with four and
five-note chords that demonstrate the issue, and each rendered with
'chord-dots-limit' values from 0 to 3.  Please find attached.

Regards,

Chris

P.S. There is a related problem where dotted chords in two voices get all
the dots all placed after the note. A chord such as { << <a c d e>4.. \\ <g
b d c e>2. >> } is especially bad. But I think if the dot positioning is
fixed, this is a question of horizontal spacing which is covered by another
bug.

Added as https://sourceforge.net/p/testlilyissues/issues/4971/

--
Phil Holmes



_______________________________________________
bug-lilypond mailing list
bug-lilypond@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-lilypond

Reply via email to