Re: Adds padding between Hairpins and SpanBars. (issue 5438060)

[address@hidden]

On Dec 19, 2011, at 7:37 AM, Keith OHara wrote:

> Le 8 Dec 2011 à 00:17:56 -0800, address@hidden a écrit :
>> Le Dec 8, 2011 à 1:30 AM, address@hidden a écrit :
>> 
>>> The old code was making a distinction between hairpins that end at the
>>> end of a line and those that continue on the next line.
> 
>>> Does your code preserve this distinction?
>> 
>> Yes.  I care about the latter (whether the hairpin itself is broken) and all 
>> my code kicks in after this distinction is made.
>> 
> 
> Hey Mike,
> I was in the hairpin code for issue 1216 and noticed that you apply 
> broken-bound-padding for both of the cases we talked about above.  That means 
> that for the original example in issue 2057, the hairpins ending at the end 
> of the line get only half the space as the ones ending at other bar lines, 
> and there is no distinction between hairpins that end at the end of the line 
> versus those that continue on the next line.
> 
> It's not a big difference, until somebody overrides 'bound-padding and still 
> gets the hard-coded 0.6 staff-space at the final bar line.
> 
> What do you think about integrating your code into the old logic like this 
> <http://codereview.appspot.com/5479071/> so that hairpins ending on a 
> non-musical column get 'bound-padding, while hairpins broken across lines get 
> 'broken-bound-padding which calls your new code ?   Your regression test is 
> unchanged.
> 
> Lemme know.
> 
> -Keith

Go for it!
Thanks for catching that.  And while you're at it, in the same patch, could you 
try removing line 170 from hairpin.cc (the if condition for direction equaling 
left) and changing line 106 to:

  return scm_from_double (0.6 + span_bars[DOWN]->extent (span_bars[DOWN], 
X_AXIS).length ());

That should, in theory, stop the spanner from falling short at key signatures.

Cheers,
MS