Thomas Morley <thomasmorle...@googlemail.com> writes:
> 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.
Yes, but what do we need that for?
> 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.
But I don't think we advertise \bar "" for anything except introducing
optional breakpoints in the middle of a bar. Why would we want
additional space then? The spacing of an optional breakpoint should not
be different from the spacing of a forced breakpoint, should it?
--
David Kastrup
_______________________________________________
lilypond-devel mailing list
lilypond-devel@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
