2017-01-06 19:00 GMT+01:00 Joel C. Salomon <[email protected]>: > On 2017-01-05 1:04 PM, Thomas Morley wrote: >> setting spanner-id via \=... has still some shortcomings. >> >> In _this_ and only this case I'd go for a complete stencil-rewrite, >> tailored at mass (every bow starts/ends at same height. > > Nice! I can see where this has its weaknesses too: it wouldn’t work if > the two chords weren’t approximately at the same height,
Ofcourse, it's a special override for a special, single situation. > but it’s > perfect for this case. Thank you. > > (Now I have to make an editorial decision whether to keep this, or to > use standard LilyPond chord slurs––i.e., just one single slur curve––and > be consistent throughout the project.) > > Question about the code, though: I can kinda-sorta follow what it’s > doing, or at least I can figure out where in the reference manual to > look up the details. But whence the numbers 0, 1, 2.4, & 3.7? Are > these trial-and-error numbers? Yep. One could probably reduce them with reading out the original stencil extent, but still, at least two bows would need correction anyway, so I decided: to much work for one-time-use Btw, I didn't clean things like (- whatever 0). So follow readers have a hint where to insert custom values... And ofcourse it's all fragile like hell, but doable :) If you could friend yourself with the possibities Abraham and Davd demonstrated I'd go for it. Cheers, Harm _______________________________________________ lilypond-user mailing list [email protected] https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
