Re: Beam collision push

[Han-Wen Nienhuys]

On Thu, Feb 24, 2011 at 10:11 AM, Mike Solomon <address@hidden> wrote:
> Hey all,
>
> Han Wen - I saw that you pushed your beam collision work to master branch.
>
> I truly feel that this is premature and I urge you to undo it.  The reason I 
> have not pushed my patch yet is because I think more people need to chime in. 
>  This type of collision avoidance is very important to my current work as a 
> composer, and the version that you pushed will not be able to correctly 
> account for several types of collisions, as you saw in the files that I sent 
> out to the list (unless you have modified it in a way of which I'm not 
> aware), not least of which are the type that Neil sent out to the list and 
> that my patch currently deals with.
>
> Collision avoidance is a brute-force manipulation of the beam that is 
> difficulty to justify in quanting, which should deal with a discrete range of 
> limited possibilities.  It forces one into a cycle where one has to guess the 
> appropriate region size to catch large collisions and recompile to see if one 
> was right.  In doing so, the region size increase invariably increases the 
> time of compilation.  It also does not allow for fine tuning of beam 
> collisions on a grob-by-grob basis, which you see in action in the response I 
> sent out to Neil.
>
> Please, again, I urge you to undo this before people start building on it.  I 
> do not believe that it is a tractable long-term solution, and I feel that 
> pushing this early kills any dialogue on a better way of going about this.

Let me cook something for the situations you need as well this
weekend.  Can you make a .ly with a few realistic samples of what you
need?

--
Han-Wen Nienhuys - address@hidden - http://www.xs4all.nl/~hanwen