Re: Better pure heights for slurs (issue 5431065)

[k-ohara5a5a]

On 2011/11/25 05:01:39, mike_apollinemike.com wrote:
> On Thu, 24 Nov 2011 19:16:46 +0000, mailto:address@hidden wrote:
> > I like the direction of this change.

> Does it actually work?

It used to.  You should try your patches, occasionally.
Take Carl's example from
<http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/lilypond-devel/2011-11/msg00426.html>
and replace his debugging \paper block with
 \paper{ annotate-spacing = ##t ragged-bottom = ##t}

The good versions space this nicely on 4 pages.  (Patch set 3 uses 35
pages.)


http://codereview.appspot.com/5431065/diff/5003/lily/slur.cc
File lily/slur.cc (right):

http://codereview.appspot.com/5431065/diff/5003/lily/slur.cc#newcode101
lily/slur.cc:101: ret[downup] = minmax (downup, d[dir], ret[dir]);
?? ret.add_point(d[dir]);

http://codereview.appspot.com/5431065/diff/5003/lily/slur.cc#newcode106
lily/slur.cc:106: extremal_heights[RIGHT] = d[dir];
extremal_heights[LEFT (Right)] holds the position of the slur-side end
of the first (respectively, last) nonempty encompassed grob we found.

http://codereview.appspot.com/5431065/diff/5003/lily/slur.cc#newcode113
lily/slur.cc:113: // we dampen the height approximation by the slur's
likely slope
But why bother?  height_approximation is typically 0.3 staff-space, and
always vertical even if the slur slopes?

http://codereview.appspot.com/5431065/diff/5003/lily/slur.cc#newcode119
lily/slur.cc:119: 0.5 staff spaces from the note-head.
Should this 0.5 have been free-height-distance all along?

http://codereview.appspot.com/5431065/