Re: 2.13.48 not good IMO

[Keith OHara]

胡海鹏 - Hu Haipeng <hhpmusic <at> 163.com> writes:

> 
> Hello,  I think 2.13.48 is not as good as 2.13.46. I compiled the work 
> I'm working on, in .46, it takes 45 pages, with only a (de)crescendo too 
> small warning; while in .48, it takes 48 pages, and gives many that warnings.
> Haipeng
> 

The were two changes that could be expected to take more space.  One change 
prevented rests from overlapping a key signature at key changes. The other 
change prevents notes from being moved over things, such as bar lines, if 
they would be too close vertically to the other thing.

I can imagine these changes might cause the 6% increase in length.

I saw different results with my larger scores.  The scores of 54, 42, and 23 
pages stayed the same number of pages.  A 16-page score on .46, takes only 15 
pages on .48.  So overall it looks good to me.