Re: [frogs] Re: tablature: ties and harmonics (issue1669041)

[Carl Sorensen]

On 6/27/10 3:19 AM, "Marc Hohl" <address@hidden> wrote:

> address@hidden schrieb:
>> http://codereview.appspot.com/1669041/diff/26001/27003
>> File scm/define-grob-interfaces.scm (right):
>> 
>> http://codereview.appspot.com/1669041/diff/26001/27003#newcode91
>> scm/define-grob-interfaces.scm:91: 'harmonic-parentheses-interface
>> Calling this "parenthesis-interface" would allow its use for other
>> applications of parentheses and would be a good idea, in my opinion.
> Ok, done.
>> 
>> http://codereview.appspot.com/1669041/diff/26001/27004
>> File scm/define-grob-properties.scm (right):
>> 
>> http://codereview.appspot.com/1669041/diff/26001/27004#newcode56
>> scm/define-grob-properties.scm:56: (angularity ,number? "Angularity of a
>> bracket.")
>> "angle bracket" instead of "bracket"?
> Done.
>> 
>> http://codereview.appspot.com/1669041/diff/26001/27004#newcode130
>> scm/define-grob-properties.scm:130: (bracket-width ,number? "Width of
>> the harmonic angle bracket.")
>> Why do we need bracket-width?  Why can't we just use the pre-existing
>> width property?
> Hm, Neil proposed to use a more descriptive name for this property, IIUC.
> Done.

Well, if we want to have this be part of the parenthesis-interface, then we
may want to go ahead with bracket-width.

>> 
>> http://codereview.appspot.com/1669041/diff/26001/27007#newcode155
>> scm/tablature.scm:155: (define (draw-harmonic-stencil dir grob)
>> Why not use parenthesize-stencil (see scm/stencil.scm)?  This seems like
>> duplicated code, and we should probably avoid that if possible.
>> 
> I just copied the code from scm/output-lib.scm similar to the parenthesizing
> routine within scm/tablature.scm. I thought I could call the newly
> introduced
> helper routine itself, but this is not possible due to the limitation
> that I can't
> (at least easily?) get the current property values of the
> HarmonicParenthesesItem
> grob within the tie callback.
> parenthesize-stencil (in scm,/stencil.scm) does not take the whiteout
> into account,
> and at the moment, the whiteout handling is not done properly throughout
> scm/tablature.scm. Sometimes it is hardcoded, sometimes it takes the
> 'whiteout property into account. I think the brackets and parentheses
> should follow the TabNoteHead #'whiteout more consequently in this respect.

If instead of making the whiteout and the stencil different stencils, we
combined them, then parenthesize-stencil would work great.  But this might
not be possible if we need to have the stencil and the whiteout on separate
layers.  As an alternative, parenthesize-stencil could be modified to take
white-padding as an argument.  There's nothing that says we can't modify
scm/stencil.scm so that it works better for tablature.  It's much better,
IMO, to have one general-purpose piece of code than to have two separate
special-purpose code chunks.

Thanks,

Carl