Then, do you agree that this causes that the \offset command is broken at
least for the X/Y-offset properties of any grob?
Please correct me if I'm wrong. I would be very happy to see a solution or
an alternative for making *fine tuning* while preserving the
avoid-collisions algo.
In addition, I wonder if is there a way to get the final positioning (and
then the actual distance from the reference point) by overriding some stuff
in the .scm code. This is how I generated the html file instead of the svg
one.

Thanks for your help,
Paolo






On Wed, Jan 15, 2020 at 4:52 AM Carl Sorensen <c_soren...@byu.edu> wrote:

>
>
>
>
> *From: *Paolo Prete <paolopr...@gmail.com>
> *Date: *Tuesday, January 14, 2020 at 8:10 PM
> *To: *Aaron Hill <lilyp...@hillvisions.com>
> *Cc: *Lilypond-User Mailing List <lilypond-user@gnu.org>
> *Subject: *Re: Distance of a grob from its reference point
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> I really can't count how many times I had to to that in so many scores.
> And there's no way to do that automagically. Really no way.
>
> Otherwise I would not have asked what I'm asking.
>
> Then I'm forced to use the extra-offset property for now.
>
> Hope that someone could solve this issue. I'm sure there's a way for doing
> that, without changing the code and whole Lilypond would have a great
> benefit from it.
>
>
>
> I’m sure that within the current code base there is no way to solve this
> issue in the means you have proposed.  When the Y-offset property of a grob
> is an unpure-pure-container, final positioning is done **after** \offset
> is applied to the unpure-pure-container value.  And then collision
> avoidance is applied, along with “automagic” placement. So the only way to
> solve this problem with the current code base is to use extra-offset.  But
> then you also get to do your own collision avoidance.
>
>
>
> I’m sorry, but I think this is the current state of LilyPond’s placement
> algorithms.  And that’s why I prefer to find ways to tweak the placement
> algorithms, as opposed to tweaking the grobs.
>
>
>
> Thanks,
>
>
>
> Carl
>
>
>

Reply via email to