On Fri, 22 Mar 2002, Han-Wen Nienhuys wrote:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
> > While I am still thinking about my previous patch, here is,
> > for the time of being, a different one!
>
> applied.
>
Thanks!
>
> > + *
> > + */
> > +Molecule
> > +Lookup::bezier_sandwich (Bezier top_curve, Bezier bottom_curve)
> > +{
>
> > + SCM horizontal_bend = scm_list_n (ly_symbol2scm ("bezier-sandwich"),
> > + ly_quote_scm (list),
> > + gh_double2scm (0.0),
> > + SCM_UNDEFINED);
>
> doesn't this give weird effects, now that we have rounded slur
> endings?
>
Mmh, I will have a look at it.
> > + * /| ^
> > + * / | |
> > + * / | | height
> > + * / | |
> > + * / | v
> > + * | /
> > + * | /
> > + * (0,0) x /slope=dy/dx
> > + * | /
> > + * |/
> > + *
> > + * <----->
> > + * width
> > + */
> > +Molecule
> > +Lookup::horizontal_slope (Real width, Real slope, Real height)
> > +{
>
>
> why don't you use Lookup::beam ?
>
Maybe things have changed in the meantime, but when I wrote this wrapper
method a year ago, I think there was something like a vertical slope
(maybe it was the repeat_slash), and this seemed to be a complementary
thing. Anyway, "beam" is somewhat misleading, since this term has a
musicological meaning, but porrectus.cc composes shapes using the "beam"
scm symbol that have nothing to do with beams in the musicological sense.
Therefore, "horizontal slope" was a more appropriate term, since it purely
describes the shape rather than the purpose of use. If you still prefer
"beam" (in the sense of a shape), maybe there should be a "horizontal"
beam and a "vertical" beam for further distinction. Still, I am not
really satisfied with either name, neither "beam", nor "slope".
And, of course, the parameters of Lookup::beam() and
Lookup::horizontal_slope() differ in semantics (but they map bijectively
to each other in a simple way).
Greetings,
Juergen
_______________________________________________
Lilypond-devel mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://mail.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
