On 12/2/09 4:56 PM, "Trevor Daniels" wrote:
>
>
> Carl Sorensen wrote Wednesday, December 02, 2009 10:29 PM
>>
>> In order to do the proper explanation, it seems to me we need to
>> be clear on
>> three things:
>>
>> 1) Stacking priority depends on outside-staff-priority if it's
>> present
Carl Sorensen wrote Wednesday, December 02, 2009 10:29 PM
In order to do the proper explanation, it seems to me we need to
be clear on
three things:
1) Stacking priority depends on outside-staff-priority if it's
present
2) If not, it depends on script-priority
3) How to decide if objects h
2009/12/2 Carl Sorensen :
> Oh, I had misunderstood. Actually, according to gdb, the \turn has a
> script-priority of 0.
Oops, of course, since it's the only Script in the stack.
>
>>
>>> Does this mean we need to establish the outside-staff-priority for *all*
>>> scripts?
>>
>> No, since some
On 12/2/09 2:47 PM, "Neil Puttock" wrote:
> 2009/12/2 Carl Sorensen :
>
>> But it seems to me that if outside-staff-priority is set for one grob, and
>> not for the other, then they should be compared by script-priority, since
>> there is *not* an outside-staff priority.
>
> That's exactly w
2009/12/2 Carl Sorensen :
> But it seems to me that if outside-staff-priority is set for one grob, and
> not for the other, then they should be compared by script-priority, since
> there is *not* an outside-staff priority.
That's exactly what I mean: in the case above, the turn has no
outside-sta
On 12/2/09 2:19 PM, "Neil Puttock" wrote:
> 2009/12/1 Carl Sorensen :
>
>> There is a question I have though,
>>
>> In your opinion, should
>>
>> c4^"1"^"2"\turn
>>
>> put the \turn at the top or the bottom of the stack?
>
> I think I prefer leaving it as it is, otherwise it breaks the ru
2009/12/1 Carl Sorensen :
> There is a question I have though,
>
> In your opinion, should
>
> c4^"1"^"2"\turn
>
> put the \turn at the top or the bottom of the stack?
I think I prefer leaving it as it is, otherwise it breaks the rule
that outside-staff-priority should only take precedence over
s
On 11/30/09 2:09 PM, "lilyp...@googlecode.com"
wrote:
> Updates:
> Status: Started
> Labels: -fixed_2_13_9
>
> Comment #6 on issue 787 by n.puttock: script stack order fails with 2 more
> notes
> http://code.google.com/p/lilypond/issues/detail?id=787
>
> This is still not qui
