Re: Adds tick mark to scripts (issue 6568055)

[Phil Holmes]

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "James" <address@hidden>
To: "Phil Holmes" <address@hidden>
Cc: <address@hidden>; <address@hidden>; 
<address@hidden>; <address@hidden>; 
<address@hidden>
Sent: Friday, September 28, 2012 3:38 PM
Subject: Re: Adds tick mark to scripts (issue 6568055)


> On 28 September 2012 15:12, Phil Holmes <address@hidden> wrote:
> > ----- Original Message ----- From: "Janek Warchoł"
> > <address@hidden>
> > To: "Phil Holmes" <address@hidden>
> > Cc: <address@hidden>; <address@hidden>;
> > <address@hidden>; <address@hidden>; <address@hidden>;
> > <address@hidden>
> > Sent: Friday, September 28, 2012 3:09 PM
> > Subject: Re: Adds tick mark to scripts (issue 6568055)
> >
> >
> >
> > > On Fri, Sep 28, 2012 at 11:40 AM, Phil Holmes <address@hidden> 
> > > wrote:
> > > > This is clear, but I've had a think about this and I don't agree.  The
> > > > natural reference point of the tick is its bottom, not the middle of 
> > > > the
> > > > tick, which is a somewhat arbitrary point based on the aesthetics of 
> > > > the
> > > > line widths chosen - if you're going to place the glyph, you'd always 
> > > > do
> > > > it
> > > > with reference to its lowest extent.  So I'm happy to change the
> > > > horizontal,
> > > > but don't propose to change the vertical spacing, except to get rid of
> > > > the
> > > > blank space.
> > >
> > >
> > > Ah, but if you do what i propose, you enable the user to choose easily
> > > how he wants to align the mark.  He can either align it to the bottom
> > > edge, or to the "optical center".  If you keep the "vertical
> > > situation" as is, the user will be able to easily align to the bottom
> > > only.
> > >
> > > What i suggest is similar to what we have in breve notehead case, only
> > > in different axis: we have the ability to align breve note both to its
> > > very left edge, and its reference point (which is on the left edge of
> > > the oval, i.e. without the lines):
> > >
> > > { c''_\markup { \musicglyph #"noteheads.sM1double" } }
> > >
> > > { \override TextScript #'self-alignment-X = #LEFT
> > >  c''_\markup { \musicglyph #"noteheads.sM1double" } }
> > >
> > > Does this convince you?
> > >
> > > cheers,
> > > Janek
> >
> >
> > No - sorry.  I can't envisage any situation where anyone would want to 
> > align
> > to the inside bend of a tick mark.
>
> But that's beside the point though right? :)
>
> I mean I couldn't ever envisage half the stuff that others seem to
> require before I joined the LilyPond dev lists.
>
> I guess the point here is if you have 2 points of reference it makes
> it more flexible to align than just 1 and then you have manually tweak
> it.
>
> for example if you had a square box and you wanted the tick inside it
> in 'naturally; (I'm using a silly example here) that you'd not want to
> align the bottom of the tick but the place where Werner was talking
> (i.e. the pit of the tick).


Don't think so.  If I do what Janek is suggesting, we end up with the normal 
alignment point (the zero reference point) as being in the pit of the tick. 
The bottom of the tick is the bottom of the bounding box, and it pushes down 
below this.  So if you do nothing else but change the breath mark to a tick, 
then the tick sticks into the top staff line, which is ugly.  If you have 
what I want, then the bottom of the tick touches the top staff line, and is 
easily adjusted in increments of staff line dimensions.

How much would you need to over-ride the y position to get the Janek tick to 
just touch the staff line?

--
Phil Holmes