Re: horizontal spacing regression

[Keith OHara]

On Fri, 14 Jan 2011 03:34:33 -0800, Carl Sorensen <address@hidden> wrote:
> I agree in general, but the question is "do we *want* to restore the old
> behavior?"  We have a regtest that demonstrates the new behavior.  When we
> try to restore the old behavior in the case at hand, we also break one
> instance in the regtest.
This regtest is a series of cases, and one case on the borderline changed, so 
it might not be considered a break in a regtest.

> I guess that if we can find a value of extra-spacing-height that will
> restore the old behavior in the case at hand, and not break the regtest,
> it's the best of both worlds.

I could not reach the best of both worlds.  The reg-test (image attached) stops 
tucking the ceses under the feses (just left of the bar) when we add as little 
as 0.1 staff-space to the the flats.   The rising notes (other image) remain 
tucked until we add 0.4 staff-space to the flats.

I looked into removing some extra-spacing-height from the Dots, now [-0.5 , 
0.5], but we need most all of that to avoid tucking things like {c4... e}. 
(Based on behavior, the extent has origin at the notehead center height as 
distinct from the dots height when they are shifted to avoid staff lines.)
--
Keith

spacing-horizontal-skyline.preview.png
Description: PNG image

1474.png
Description: PNG image