Hi David, > They are completely different functions and rely on different > information getting collected and processed by the respective engravers. > So you cannot just merge them into one function that then does different > things dependent on some centre-in-measure flag.
As is so often the case, I don’t seem to be asking the right question(s), or else I’m asking the right question(s) in a way that does not result in helpful answer(s). So here goes another attempt to as the right question, or ask it in the right way: Is it really the case that the best way for Lilypond to centre things in measures is the current ad-hoc grab-bag of built-in algorithms (cf. MMRs) and distinct hacks (David N’s measure-centred spanners, Harm’s note-column-centering, etc. etc. etc.), as opposed to building a single, consistent, shared mechanism that could be used / adapted / leveraged / referenced / whatever by any grob [type] that wanted to be centred in a measure? Thanks, Kieren. ________________________________ Kieren MacMillan, composer ‣ website: www.kierenmacmillan.info ‣ email: i...@kierenmacmillan.info _______________________________________________ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
