2012/1/8 Marc Hohl <m...@hohlart.de>: > Am 07.01.2012 23:56, schrieb Janek Warchoł: >> I don't have any idea why change clef isn't small. > > Are you sure the attached patch is up-to-date with your work? > I get a small change clef in the fifth line, see attachment.
Strange. I'm sure there's an error on my compilation; i've applied that patch over 82efa40ed14c81d619624e2589523ddfd6fb7998. > Sorry - can't help on that. But generally, wouldn't it be better to store > the > offsets in an alist, so that each (glyph . direction) pair has an offset > number? > You'll have to take clefs.G_change and the likes into account, too, so the > if-else-constructs will be rather clumsy. Perhaps you're right. I'll work on that when i have correct "mechanics". 2012/1/8 Neil Puttock <n.putt...@gmail.com>: > 2012/1/8 Marc Hohl <m...@hohlart.de>: > >> Are you sure the attached patch is up-to-date with your work? >> I get a small change clef in the fifth line, see attachment. > > I get the same result as Janek. I think the problem is that the > glyph-name callback checks break-status, thus shouldn't be called from > the engraver (it's too early, then gets cached when accessed later in > the print callback). ok, i think i understand what you said (that's a success :) ), but i don't know what should i use instead of glyph-name callback - a hint please? thanks, Janek _______________________________________________ lilypond-devel mailing list lilypond-devel@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel