Re: Fixes heights and pure heights of stems. (issue 4898044)

[Mike Solomon]

On Aug 24, 2011, at 1:46 PM, Janek Warchoł wrote:

> 2011/8/24 Mike Solomon <address@hidden>:
>> On Aug 24, 2011, at 12:09 AM, Janek Warchoł wrote:
>> 
>>> 2011/8/16 Han-Wen Nienhuys <address@hidden>:
>>>> #2) sounds neat, but maybe Janek (who has spent some time messing
>>>> around with flags) wants to weigh in.
>>> 
>>> As i've said in a private mail to Mike, i don't have anything against doing 
>>> so.
>>> 
>>> Mike, i understand that your patch changes some beams.  I'd like to
>>> check what effect does it have on my scores, but i'm not sure if i can
>>> do it now or rather should i wait until flag grob is pushed.
>> 
>> You can check it now - the flag grob won't really have an effect, and will 
>> break the patch until I upload a new set.
>> 
>>> I also
>>> don't understand what '\override Stem #'stencil = #(lambda (grob) ...'
>>> is about.
>> 
>> Where was this lambda function talked about?
> 
> In your first mail,
> http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/lilypond-devel/2011-08/msg00572.html
> 
> cheers,
> Janek
> 

Ah, I see.
These lambda functions allow you to see heights and/or pure heights next to the 
stems.  Throw them into a regtest with lots of stems (beamed and unbeamed), run 
it with current master, and then run it with my patch.  You'll see that the 
pure height approximations and the heights are more accurately represented w/ 
this patch (at least I think they are...I haven't yet heard any feedback to the 
contrary).

Cheers,
MS