On Mon, Sep 27, 2010 at 7:56 PM, Keith E OHara
<address@hidden> wrote:
In "First impressions of alpha test" I wrote:
On Fri, 24 Sep 2010 10:41:24 -0700, Joe Neeman <address@hidden> wrote:
Do you consider this desirable?
Personally, I have a neutral opinion on the aggressive tucking.
Well, opinions change over time. It is a subtle thing, but I think the old naive spacing around accidentals makes an easier-to-read page. Here are two dense measures of Debussy that are a little difficult to space.
Moving the notes over the clef-change is a good thing, of course.
The stem-accidental collisions do not occur unless the beam crosses staffs, even if it is kneed, so they might be considered part of the cross-staff issues. The spacing of the first three 16ths is probably a cross-staff artifact as well. However, stems of cross-staff beams will always be special cases in collision resolution, so they can cross a long hairpin crescendo for example. So I suggest that keeping accidentals clear of other note columns might be wisest.
More simply, in the last three 16th notes (demisemiquavers) in the first measure, I want the accidental to give me a bit of extra space for readability. I was able to create a small example showing a case where notes with an accidental in between were actually spaced closer together. (I imagined the new spacing engine getting a little too excited: "can I fit under the neighboring accidental? Yes! Oh boy lets slide these together!!")
So I favor less aggressive tucking of noteheads under other noteheads and their attached accidentals, if that is an option. Other opinions?
--
Keith
_______________________________________________
lilypond-user mailing list
address@hidden
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user