Mark Polesky <markpole...@yahoo.com> writes: > David Kastrup wrote: >> The main problem I see with that naming scheme is that it >> does not reflect score sheet design, but the current >> implementation. >> >> [...] >> >> So the proposed scheme ties something presented as document >> spacing parameters into internal details of their >> implementation. > > What would you propose to resolve that?
I don't think I can propose something that would not move seriously into GLISS domain. I don't see how one could sensibly manage this in a natural, designer-intuitive way without a spacing system that offers some sort of inheritance/fallback/hierarchy where you can get consistent design by specifying few parameters, but have an option to specify more specialized spacing independently/additionally and/or combine several simultaneously triggered spacing parameters (i.e., taking their maximum). The usual kind of document spacings fall into several kinds depending on a hierachy level. If we say that a high hierarchy level corresponds to low letters, low hierarchy to later letters, you may have inter-b-spacing for b-b before-b-spacing for c-b, d-b, e-b after-b-spacing for b-c, b-d, b-e But after-a-spacing for a-b. I am not sure that this sort of pure hierarchy is good enough, or whether one needs some max/min scheme. The basic point is that for x different document element levels, we get along more or less with a hierarchy and 3*x settings rather than x^2 flat settings. -- David Kastrup _______________________________________________ lilypond-devel mailing list lilypond-devel@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel