Thomas Morley <[email protected]> writes: > while working on automated slashed Beams, I noticed my > stencil-procedure was always inexact for non-horizontal Beams. I > looked at 'X-positions and 'positions of a Beam to get it's slope and > derived the slope from those values. > > But the visible gradient obviously relies on blot-diameter as well. > Look at the attached image (code for it below). There you can always > see three overlayed Beams with blot-diameters: 0, 0.5 and 1 > For _identical_ 'positions the _visible_ slope is not the same. And > I've got the impression the difference increases with steeped > beam-slope. > > Is this intended or a bug? > > Thanks, > Harm > > Here the used code: > > { > \override Beam.stencil = > #(lambda (grob) > (let* ((layout (ly:grob-layout grob))) > (ly:stencil-add > (begin > (ly:output-def-set-variable! layout 'blot-diameter 1) > (stencil-with-color (ly:beam::print grob) black)) > (begin > (ly:output-def-set-variable! layout 'blot-diameter 0.5) > (stencil-with-color (ly:beam::print grob) red)) > (begin > (ly:output-def-set-variable! layout 'blot-diameter 0) > (stencil-with-color (ly:beam::print grob) cyan))))) > > > \override Beam.positions = #'(2 . 8) > b8^[ b] > \override Beam.positions = #'(2 . 7) > b8^[ b] > \override Beam.positions = #'(2 . 6) > b8^[ b] > \override Beam.positions = #'(2 . 5) > b8^[ b] > \override Beam.positions = #'(2 . 4) > b8^[ b] > \override Beam.positions = #'(2 . 3) > b8^[ b] > \override Beam.positions = #'(2 . 2) > b8^[ b] > }
You talk about beam slope a lot but instead specify beam positions. I get the impression that those positions are heeded pretty well, so I don't see fit to label this as a bug. What would you think qualifies as problematic here? -- David Kastrup _______________________________________________ lilypond-devel mailing list [email protected] https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
