Re: Beam positions and time signature spacing

[Gilberto Agostinho]

David Kastrup wrote
> If the very best authority states that A and V should be 
> kerned by -0.15 em spaces and this looks bad

If it looks bad according to whom? There are tons of people on this list,
each one possibly having his own view of what a pretty score consists of.


David Kastrup wrote
> One should never _discard_ what an authority has to say and should try 
> tracking its reasoning, but if the results from following instructions 
> don't actually lead to convincing results (in particular when comparing 
> them with the printed results), one needs to do better than follow 
> instructions.  And more often than not, heeding all constraints 
> mentioned in instructions at the same time is not even possible 
> sensibly, and then one needs to relax them using sensible priorities. 

Surely what you say here is very reasonable David, but you are being kind of
relativistic here. We are not talking here about moving something by 0.01
units, are we? Have you seen how my .PNG example above compares to Gould's
own examples? I would not dare to say these things are little "poetic
licenses" we allowed ourselves to take.

I am always and only posting here about things that (IMO) LilyPond got very
wrongly. I am not going to measure the distance between a clef and the time
signature and say "look, authority A says we should have 2.5 units here, but
LilyPond outputs only 2.47, what an absurd!"



--
View this message in context: 
http://lilypond.1069038.n5.nabble.com/Beam-positions-and-time-signature-spacing-tp153538p153638.html
Sent from the User mailing list archive at Nabble.com.