Janek Warchoł <[email protected]> writes: > So, standards change. If that's the case, we can be a forefront of > such changes.
In the case of the measure numbers, this change causes less effective use of a rectangular printing area. In the age of digital print, the role of a bounding box has changed. I am not sure about the exact consequences. I consider it perfectly reasonable, however, to demand controls for making the measure number stay inside of the general inking area. What we should have as a _default_ is a different question. > PS if you could investigate spacing alists (this shouldn't be hard) > and make a proposal of how exactly they should be changed, Seems more related to the staff start spacings rather than the measure numbers. > that would be very good. Discussions about concrete proposals *with* > the code change are much different than discussions without the code. It also sends out a more serious variant of the message "this is important to me" without the accompanying "so this should make you want to do the work". It's in general much easier to get something done by doing it than by telling others they should do it. And sometimes you'll find that you can make them do most of the work anyway by asking "how would I do this?" rather than "why don't you want to do this?". -- David Kastrup _______________________________________________ lilypond-user mailing list [email protected] https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
