Comment #51 on issue 3307 by [email protected]: Rest positions incorrect with
non-standard line count
http://code.google.com/p/lilypond/issues/detail?id=3307
Regarding #49: it may be instructive, but not relevant for this issue as it
is not suitable for an automated choice. Anybody wanting to (re-)produce a
score like this should use pitched rests in order to indicate his
intention. And that's already perfectly feasible.
Regarding #47: "This sounds like consensus." seems a bit of a stretch. We
are converging towards a solution.
Now Thomas is not the person requiring to override every single rest
manually if he wants to change the style of their positioning. He'll be
able to find a programmatic solution. But if there _are_ legitimate other
styles (acknowledged by Gould) the question is whether we should not try to
find a solution for overriding the defaults that does not require
programming skills beyond that of the average typesetter, like a property
containing extra directional shifts for duration logs.
For the current extra shift down of downward whole rests, this extra shift
property would likely look like
`(((0 . ,DOWN) . -2))
and Thomas would likely just override it to '(). If we hardcode part of
the positioning into such an extra property, the question becomes just
_which_ part we want to put there. The defaults should lead to reasonable
results without additional tampering, but if we allow such extra rules, the
results of explicit tampering should be predictable without having to know
in advance what the result would be without override.
--
You received this message because this project is configured to send all
issue notifications to this address.
You may adjust your notification preferences at:
https://code.google.com/hosting/settings
