Re: fine-tuning new flags - feedback needed

[Carl Sorensen]

On 2/4/11 12:01 PM, "Janek Warchoł" <address@hidden>
wrote:

> Hi,
> 
> this is (hopefully) the final version of the new flags; it's a mix of
> previous two propositions and some new modifications. I must admit
> that i'm proud of it :)
> Some differencies between this version and the "compromise" version
> (from my previous mail):
> - 32nd stems are a bit shorter (but not as short as i suggested
> before), 128th stems are a bit shorter too. This makes the stem length
> transition smoother (see the coloured lines in the attachments),
> - the downstem flags are modified in such a way that the gap between
> notehead and flag is smaller; this makes 64th and especially 128th
> notes more balanced (at least in my opinion), see the dots in the
> attachment,

Read shows a larger gap on 64th and 128th flags than on the longer note
duration flags.

> - the downstem 8th flag is a bit shorter. This is to make sure that
> there will be a visible gap between notehead and the end of the flag.
> See attachment,

The downstem flags shown by Read have no gap between the flag and the head
for eighth, sixteenth, and 32nd notes.  I have not looked into
beautifully-engraved music to see what the publishers' practice is.

> - the shortened upstem 8th flags are shorter (now the dots don't
> collide with them!).
> 
> Here are the .ly files used for testing: http://www.sendspace.com/file/gjh6ng
> Here are the pdfs: http://www.sendspace.com/file/j9dq5t
> Here are pdfs made with current dev release (2.13.47) for comparison:
> http://www.sendspace.com/file/ogl8rk
> Here is the patch file (i hope i got this right...):
> http://www.sendspace.com/file/2dx8wa

Since you have made a patch, it appears that you have git available.  Is
there a reason you haven't uploaded the patch to Rietveld for review?

Thanks,

Carl