Hi Malte, your patch fixes the "magnifyStaff"-problem.
Though, this functionality needs testing, imho. I'd extend the reg-test merge-rests-engraver.ly or add a new one. Some other thoughts: https://codereview.appspot.com/334740043/diff/1/scm/scheme-engravers.scm File scm/scheme-engravers.scm (right): https://codereview.appspot.com/334740043/diff/1/scm/scheme-engravers.scm#newcode140 scm/scheme-engravers.scm:140: (define (rest-eqv rest-len-prop) While you're on it, I'd prefer rest-eqv? for a predicate returning a boolean. Here and at several other instances. https://codereview.appspot.com/334740043/diff/1/scm/scheme-engravers.scm#newcode214 scm/scheme-engravers.scm:214: (merge-rests rests (lambda (r) 0)) 'merge-rests' as defined above expects a procedure as second argument, so there is the need to put in a procedure here as well. But wouldn't it be better to delete the 'position-function'-argument from the definition and derive the local 'staff-pos'-variable from (if (is-single-bar-rest? (car rests)) 2 0) directly? With the advantage one could then delete the entire 'mmrest-position', at least after correcting the other code-parts expecting position-function. Then here only (merge-rests rests) remains. https://codereview.appspot.com/334740043/ _______________________________________________ lilypond-devel mailing list [email protected] https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
