[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Patch: issue #659
From: |
Alexander Kobel |
Subject: |
Re: Patch: issue #659 |
Date: |
Tue, 19 Jan 2010 20:54:39 +0100 |
User-agent: |
Thunderbird 2.0.0.23 (X11/20090817) |
Marc Hohl wrote:
I don't know. The staff lines should end a little bit earlier, see
http://lilypond.googlecode.com/issues/attachment?aid=-394070284723943851&name=segno-end.png&inline=1
I don't think it is a good idea to let the segno sign reach into the
margin, so
the staff lines have to end before reaching the right margin.
Hi, Marc,
thanks for dealing with this.
I found another example (the one in the bugtracker comes from me, too),
from Bosworth & Co. as well, but this time without bar lines spanned
across the staves. (Anyone seen a source where this glyph is used by
another publisher?)
Here, the double bar lines are not drawn through the whole staff, but
the staff lines actually extend across the segno.
I'd prefer drawn-through bar lines (which seems easier to implement,
anyway), but I'd expect the segno sign to reach into the margin. (The
same as with, say, a fermata centered over the final bar line.)
If (as shown here) the system is actually ragged-right (or stopped after
the segno), it doesn't harm too much, anyway, since the Dal segno text
comes after it with some padding. However in case the segno ends a
flush-right system, it occurs to me that a visually shorter staff
(especially with SpanBar lines) is worse than the segno extending into
the margin.
Just my two pennies...
Cheers,
Alexander
- Re: Patch: issue #659, (continued)
- Re: Patch: issue #659, Neil Puttock, 2010/01/07
- Re: Patch: issue #659, Marc Hohl, 2010/01/08
- Re: Patch: issue #659, Marc Hohl, 2010/01/08
- Re: Patch: issue #659, Neil Puttock, 2010/01/10
- Re: Patch: issue #659, Marc Hohl, 2010/01/11
- Re: Patch: issue #659, Marc Hohl, 2010/01/18
- Re: Patch: issue #659, Trevor Daniels, 2010/01/18
- Re: Patch: issue #659, Marc Hohl, 2010/01/19
- Re: Patch: issue #659, Trevor Daniels, 2010/01/19
- Re: Patch: issue #659, Marc Hohl, 2010/01/19
- Re: Patch: issue #659,
Alexander Kobel <=
- Re: Patch: issue #659, Trevor Daniels, 2010/01/19
- Re: Patch: issue #659, Marc Hohl, 2010/01/20
- Re: Patch: issue #659, Alexander Kobel, 2010/01/20
- Re: Patch: issue #659, Marc Hohl, 2010/01/21
- Re: Patch: issue #659, Alexander Kobel, 2010/01/21
- Re: Patch: issue #659, Trevor Daniels, 2010/01/20