On Sat, 2009-10-24 at 14:01 -0600, Andrew Hawryluk wrote: > On Sun, Oct 11, 2009 at 8:58 PM, Joe Neeman <[email protected]> wrote: > > On Wed, 2009-10-07 at 22:18 -0600, Andrew Hawryluk wrote: > >> - LilyPond 2.13.5 currently has a vertical spacing problem (no padding > >> between staves). > > > > how about this: > > \layout { > > \context { > > \PianoStaff > > \override StaffGrouper #'between-staff-spacing #'padding = #0.5 > > } > > } > > > > If you find a good value, I'll make it the default. > > > > Cheers, > > Joe > > I propose #'padding = #1 as the default value for PianoStaff.
Thanks, pushed. > Are there other default values in the new spacing engine that need to > be selected, perhaps by referencing good published scores? Overall, > I'm very impressed with the new layout algorithms, and I'd be happy to > pitch in a bit of score measuring if it will help to get the constants > right. Basically, almost all of the default values for the new spacing engine were chosen almost arbitrarily by me. This includes stretchable space, stretchability, padding and minimum distance for a lot of different situations (between staves in the same staff group, between staves in different staff groups, between systems, from systems to titles, etc). Some of these values could be established by examining scores (padding, for example, and maybe minimum distance). For others (like stretchable space), it's harder because you can't measure them directly from finished scores. Perhaps some benchmarking is in order. If you, or someone else, has an example of a score that gets bad spacing together with a well typeset reference copy of the score then it could be used to fine-tune parameters. Cheers, Joe _______________________________________________ lilypond-devel mailing list [email protected] http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
