bug-lilypond
[Top][All Lists]
Advanced

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: horizontal spacing regression


From: Jan Warchoł
Subject: Re: horizontal spacing regression
Date: Sat, 15 Jan 2011 10:21:17 +0100

2011/1/14 Keith OHara <address@hidden>:
> On Thu, 13 Jan 2011 16:22:53 -0800, Carl Sorensen <address@hidden>
> wrote:
>
>> \override Accidental #'extra-spacing-height = #'(-0.5 . 0.5)
>
> That works nicely, on both the original music example we looked at on -user,
> and my new favorite example:
>
> \paper { ragged-right = ##t }
> \version "2.13.43"
> { \clef bass
> %  \override Accidental #'extra-spacing-height = #'(-0.5 . 0.5)
>  \repeat unfold 8 {f8 bes bes f }
> }
>
> The rising line of notes is usually spaced a little further apart, when
> possible, to compensate for the optical effect oval shape of the heads, as
> you and Janek have been discussing recently.

No, the oval shape of the noteheads is not the *only* reason for
optical spacing in groups of notes with the same stem direction.
Look at the attachment. The distances between stems are perfectly
equal, notehead shape is exactly round - and it looks wrong!
The optical corrections are needed because of *both* oval notehead
shape and the fact that the stems are on one side of the notes (not
running through the center).

> The accidental seems to cause
> LilyPond (all versions) to revert to the spacing for a constant-pitch
> series.  This makes some sense because the accidental destroys the
> oval-shape illusion, but it looks strange when the accidental is crowded and
> nearby notes are spaced with the optical correction in place.
>
> The extra-spacing-height seems to do just the right thing.  True, it gives
> no extra space when the interval is larger {c be be f } but neither did
> 2.12.3 and I think we don't need it there.

No, in my opinion it's really bad!
I mean, this

\version "2.13.45"
{
  \override Accidental #'extra-spacing-height = #'(-0.5 . 0.5)
  \repeat unfold 12 {f'8 bes' d'' f'' \noBreak }
}

looks to my eye worse than this:

\version "2.13.45"
{
  \repeat unfold 12 {f'8 bes' d'' f'' \noBreak }
}

I'd say that the optimal layout would be somewhere in between.

Attachment: roundnoteheads.png
Description: PNG image


reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]