Re: fix representation switching from line-position to staff-space (issue 6778050)

[David Kastrup]

Benkő Pál <address@hidden> writes:

> 2012/10/27  <address@hidden>:
>> On 2012/10/27 20:34:35, benko.pal wrote:
>>
>>> I want staves with line-positions like (-2 0 2 4) work.
>
>> Why would somebody specify (-2 0 2 4) with the expectation that the
>> results should be identical to (-3 -1 1 3)?  Why would he not specify
>> (-3 -1 1 3) in the first place then?  How is something "working" when
>> it nullifies what the user is trying to do?
>
> clefs: when specifying (-4 -2 0 2), you can use \clef alto or similar
> to get a c-clef on the third line.  in other words: when I want to
> LilyPond-ize ancient music using four- or six-line staff, the expected
> representation is a standard staff reduced or expanded by a line.

And?  Why would looking at the line_count property then yield a wrong
result?  You are specifying a missing line in the line positions, but
the overriden line count would still lead to the same positioning of
clefs.  Which would be exactly what was wanted.

> I may well imagine that for some drumming applications the best
> choice is a staff spaced by three, e.g. (-4 -1 2 5), because this way
> every pitch in the range used is unambiguously assigned to a staff
> line.

A drum staff is not exactly going to need an alto clef.  Or a
divisioMaior line.

I really have a hard time seeing just _what_ improvements we get over
the 2.14 behavior.  Is there any _real_ _existing_ problem that now
works better than before?

-- 
David Kastrup