2012/9/27 Janek Warchoł <janek.lilyp...@gmail.com>: > On Thu, Sep 27, 2012 at 8:54 AM, Marc Hohl <m...@hohlart.de> wrote: >> I have to make a distinction between >> "" and '() in the new bar line interface. >> >> What do you think would be better: using a symbol instead of '(), >> so one can write >> >> \defineBarLine "|" "|" 'none "|" >> >> or using #f instead: >> >> \defineBarLine "|" "|" #f "|" >> >> or finally defining an "empty stencil" glyph: >> >> \defineBarLine "|" "|" "x" "|" > > For me #f is definitely the most intuitive.
+1
2012/9/27 David Kastrup <d...@gnu.org>:
> What do we need a zero width stencil for?
Silly answer, to get the regtests correct. :)
More serious, a zero width stencil will be considered during spacing.
Look at the output of the following 2.16.-example. If you switch
between \bar "empty" and \bar "", they differ at line-end and
line-begin.
\new Staff
\relative c'' {
\cadenzaOn
\repeat unfold 50 { c8 }
\bar ""
% \bar "empty"
\break
\repeat unfold 50 { c8 }
\bar ""
% \bar "empty"
\cadenzaOff
}
At least the zero width stencil from \bar "" is more convincing for my eyes.
For me the question is more: Why keep \bar "empty"?
I never used it. Will have to do some research.
-Harm
<<attachment: 2-16-bar \>>
<<attachment: 2-16-bar-empty.png>>
_______________________________________________ lilypond-devel mailing list lilypond-devel@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
