Re: Key cancellation, position bug

Thomas Morley-2 wrote > For flat-cancellation:The result is an even spacing of every natural. I'd > call it a slightimprovement, but far from optimal.The gap between > first/second natural feels too wide and betweensecond/third too > tight.Sharp-cancellation is unchanged. Not perfect, but already

Re: Key cancellation, position bug

This looks just right to me. ___ bug-lilypond mailing list bug-lilypond@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-lilypond

Re: Key cancellation, position bug

2018-04-23 20:51 GMT+02:00 Torsten Hämmerle : > foxfanfare wrote >> Is it "tweakable" until a fix comes around? > There is some kind of "kerning" possibility by using the padding-pairs > property, but event this is useless in our case because all signs are > naturals, but we need different kerning

Re: Key cancellation, position bug

Carl Sorensen-3 wrote > On 4/23/18, 1:30 PM, "Torsten Hämmerle" < > torsten.haemmerle@ > > wrote: > > But why \once? > If generally all cancellations collide, you may well use a general > \override. > > Because all cancellations don't collide; only the cancellations of flat

Re: Key cancellation, position bug

Hi all, That's how my prototype solution for issue 5312 looks: The originally touching natural signs will be slightly shifted apart. Everything else stays untouched. All the best, Torsten -- Sent from: htt

Re: Key cancellation, position bug

On 4/23/18, 1:30 PM, "Torsten Hämmerle" wrote: But why \once? If generally all cancellations collide, you may well use a general \override. Because all cancellations don't collide; only the cancellations of flats collide. Carl _

Re: Key cancellation, position bug

Hi Torsten, > Yes, but it is not a perfect cure: by setting padding to 0.2, all the > naturals are spaced wider, not only the colliding ones. I see. I thought about the difference between canceling sharps and flats. I overlooked that there are two different relative positions of natural signs whe

Re: Key cancellation, position bug

Noeck wrote > \once \override Staff.KeyCancellation.padding = 0.2 > > I guess that's fine for a work-around. It looks like a cure for 99% of > the cases. Hi Joram, Yes, but it is not a perfect cure: by setting padding to 0.2, all the naturals are spaced wider, not only the colliding ones. Still,

Re: Key cancellation, position bug

Am 23.04.2018 um 20:51 schrieb Torsten Hämmerle: > Unfortunately, using something like > \override Staff.KeyCancellation.padding = 0.2 > and similar makes all the gaps wider, that doesn't really solve the problem. I'd like to disagree. I'd say: in most pieces you probably don't need key cancel

Re: Key cancellation, position bug

foxfanfare wrote > Is it "tweakable" until a fix comes around? Unfortunately, using something like \override Staff.KeyCancellation.padding = 0.2 and similar makes all the gaps wider, that doesn't really solve the problem. There is some kind of "kerning" possibility by using the padding-pairs pr

Re: Key cancellation, position bug

Torsten Hämmerle wrote > Hi Fox, > > This has nothing to do with the bass clef, as far as I can see (by > exchanging clefs, not changing clefs at all, or using alto clefs etc.), > but > it definitively has to do with the cancelled key signature: when > cancelling > flats, the naturals stick togeth

Re: Key cancellation, position bug

... and here you go with a minimal example for comparison: << { \key es \major s1 \key c \major s } { \key a \major s1 \key c \major s } >> Exact same character spacing, but the horizontal distance of naturals makes the difference. Obviously, we can't use uniform spacing for these cases..

Re: Key cancellation, position bug

Hello, On Mon, 23 Apr 2018 10:23:38 -0700 (MST), Torsten Hämmerle wrote: > foxfanfare wrote > > As you can see, the naturals aren't spaced correctly when using the bass > > clef. > > > Hi Fox, > > This has nothing to do with the bass clef, as far as I can see (by > exchanging clefs, not chan

Re: Key cancellation, position bug

foxfanfare wrote > As you can see, the naturals aren't spaced correctly when using the bass > clef. Hi Fox, This has nothing to do with the bass clef, as far as I can see (by exchanging clefs, not changing clefs at all, or using alto clefs etc.), but it definitively has to do with the cancelled

Re: Key cancellation, position bug

*edit: don't mind the first line of the code, it was test purpose. -- Sent from: http://lilypond.1069038.n5.nabble.com/Bugs-f58488.html ___ bug-lilypond mailing list bug-lilypond@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-lilypond

Re: Key cancellation, position bug

Code: \version "2.19.81" \new Staff { \override KeyCancellation.extra-spacing-width = #'(6.0 . -5.0) \key cis\major s1 \key ces\major s \clef bass \key ces\major s^"problem" \key cis\major s \bar "|." } -- Sent from: http://lilypond.

Key cancellation, position bug

Hi everyone,Just noticed a bug in the default placement of the naturals when key is changed.As you can see, the naturals aren't spaced correctly when using the bass clef.I tried \Staff.override KeyCancellation.padding = #0.2, but even with a larger padding, naturals aren't spaced uniformly.Possible