Re: Augmentation dot positioning

[Chris Yate]

On 25 Oct 2016 3:36 p.m., "Carl Sorensen" <address@hidden> wrote:
>
>
>
>
> At any rate, I have some results from Chris's test file.  I have adjusted
> the text to contain my assessment of the results.  Please let me know if
> you disagree with any of my assessments.
>
> chord-dots-limit = 1 is better in most circumstances.  It is also
> consistent with Powell.
>
> chord-dots-limit = 2 is better in a few circumstances.
>
> Feedback would be appreciated.
>
> Thanks,
>
> Carl
>

Hi Carl,

Firstly, thanks for your work on this!

At a quick glance, the only two situations that need dots-limit =2 are #11 and #23.

I think both of these point to an inconsistency/bug in the algorithm -

I think #11 should have the B space dot (I'm guessing this is a case of the algorithm not allowing a downward dot movement from the C).

#23 definitely should have the B dot, since it's a space-note.

It's looking pretty close to optimal though.

A side issue:
An idea I've just had: would it be useful to have a more flexible positioning system similar to that for rests? (e.g. "f4/rest"). It might be useful to have the option of custom dot placement for special cases.

I'm sure there's already a way to achieve this, but it's probably not easy. If anyone thinks it worthwhile, I will think more about a suggested syntax... Maybe something for the LSR rather than core functionality.

Chris