Thomas Morley-2 wrote
> this weekend I'll have not much time and I'll be completely offline
> next week for holidays.

No need to hurry, Happy Holidays ;) (oh no, that was politically correct and
is restricted Christmas time use only).

Thomas Morley-2 wrote
> In my initial testing I experienced different behaviour, for no other
> reason than different finger-numbers, i.e. small differences in their
> extents.
> Especially for right positioned fingers.
> So I recommend thorough testings ...

Yes, the slightest deviations in the number extents may just be over a
threshold or not.
The right-positioning problems, in any case, can't be solved by just
translating the stencil, so it's no wonder you very unstable results when
When taking all the dots into account, however, they make up a solid barrier
so that no fingering can slip through any more and everything will be stable
and robust against tiny extent variations.

Thomas Morley-2 wrote
> The curvy positioning is bad, imho.
> But I agree it might be a different issue.

Yes, that's a question of design and is definitely not linked to the
overlapping problem of issues 3692 or 5393. It should definitely get its own
issue (as well as the generally overlapping circled string numbers...)

Thomas Morley-2 wrote
>> But, as I said, I consider this expected behaviour, even if it seems odd
>> at
>> first glance.
>> Would you agree?
> Yes, so far. :)

Well, then. I'm just wondering about the self-alignment functionality that
correctly adjusts the Y-offset depending on self-alignment-Y and
parent-alignment-Y, only it's via callback and too late for positioning and
thus the collisions happen.
I don't the idea of unnecessarily aligning the stencil twice -- first for
correct positioning, and then again when the self-alignment callback kicks

All the best and enjoy your week off

Sent from:

lilypond-user mailing list

Reply via email to