Kieren MacMillan <kieren_macmil...@sympatico.ca> writes: > 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?
Pretty much. The MMR functionality is pretty special. One would probably need to refactor the job of typesetting MMRs between the normal rest engraver and the MMR engraver in order to make it possible for other objects to gain similar positioning. It's certainly desirable for things like bordun notes (Monteverdi's Vespers anybody?) but it requires a completely different approach to positioning that is not really amenable to a few flags. For example, what to do if a measure is split across lines? -- David Kastrup _______________________________________________ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
