Re: Implement make-bow-stencil, make-tie-stencil for use in markup-commands undertie and overtie (issue 270640043 by address@hidden)

[thomasmorley65]

On 2015/11/13 22:38:02, thomasmorley651 wrote:
> On 2015/11/13 21:51:19, dak wrote:
> > Sorry for yet finding more stuff that, after all, could likely be
improved.
> At
> > least I did so pretty quickly this time.

> No problem!
> The code became so much better during revision!
> I have to work too much in my regular job to upload more than one
patch-set per
> working-day. Though, I made the experience looking at the code after a
day or so
> is sometimes very helpful.
> Thanks a lot for your review.

> >
> >

https://codereview.appspot.com/270640043/diff/60001/scm/define-markup-commands.scm
> > File scm/define-markup-commands.scm (right):
> >
> >

https://codereview.appspot.com/270640043/diff/60001/scm/define-markup-commands.scm#newcode623
> > scm/define-markup-commands.scm:623: (direction DOWN)
> > Should this markup command be called "undertie" or should it rather
be "tie",
> > with "undertie" explicitly overriding `direction'?
> >
> > Because the rather explicit name '\undertie' seems a bit
inconsistent with the
> > behavior of
> >
> > {
> >   c'1^\markup \undertie hm
> > }
> >
> > where the direction is determined by the direction specified for the
> TextScript.

> Hm, this was _not_ intended.
> In this case a Tie _below_ the arg should be printed. For ties above
the arg
> \overtie was defined.

> Though, thinking (a little) about it, we could go for
> a)
> two commands (under- and overtie) independant from direction-modifiers
> or
> b)
> one tie-markup-command letting the user specify direction via
\override
> (direction . ...) and/or direction-modifiers

c)
a tie-command, with under/overtie derived from it.
I think that was your proposal.


> I'm undecided for now, opinions?

> >
> > https://codereview.appspot.com/270640043/diff/60001/scm/stencil.scm
> > File scm/stencil.scm (right):
> >
> >
https://codereview.appspot.com/270640043/diff/60001/scm/stencil.scm#newcode86
> > scm/stencil.scm:86: (interval-index '(0 . 1) offset-index))
> > This is just (+ 0.1 (* 0.3 angularity)) I think and right-control
would then
> be
> > (- 1 left-control).

> great catch

> >
> > I think that with the points being based on (0 . 1), the combined
> > interval-index/offset-index calculation (which never was hotness
itself) is
> not
> > exactly making things clearer.



https://codereview.appspot.com/270640043/