Re: markup-commands rest-by-number and rest (issue 6850073)

[benko . pal]

On 2012/11/26 21:11:53, thomasmorley65 wrote:
> On 2012/11/26 15:09:58, benko.pal wrote:
> >
http://codereview.appspot.com/6850073/diff/6004/scm/define-markup-commands.scm
> > File scm/define-markup-commands.scm (right):
> >
> >

http://codereview.appspot.com/6850073/diff/6004/scm/define-markup-commands.scm#newcode3251
> > scm/define-markup-commands.scm:3251: (or multi-measure-rest (< log
1)))
> > there are no Petrucci rest glyphs at all; use mensural without any
further
> > condition.  or don't even allow petrucci as style for these markups.

> Well, writing this conditions I tried to orientate myself on
`select-head-glyph´
> from output-lib.scm
> `select-head-glyph´ returns note-head-glyphs for some styles without
defined
> note-head-glyphs as well. Mostly if (< log 1)
> So I tried to transfer this behaviour to rests.

actually if (< log 0).  all this is driven by the actual layout of the
Feta font (see NR A.8): petrucci has its own notehead glyphs if (> log
-1), but it has no rest glyphs at all.

> Did you had a look on the compiled output of the new reg-tests?

no.  could you push to a dev/ branch?

> This output is what I tried to achieve.
> You'll see that for some styles mensural- or neomensural-glyphs are
taken,
> others are defaulting.

> The main question is:
> If there are no defined glyphs for a specific style,
> should I try to select others (currently tried)
> or
> should I return default-glyphs (I suspect this would be much easier)?

> Opinions?

I don't exactly know what is style and how is it set.  I thought it's a
local property of your new command and must be set explicitly by the
user; in this case you can either declare that petrucci is an invalid
style or make sure that setting petrucci is read as setting mensural.
in other words, translate petrucci to mensural once and for all in the
beginning.



http://codereview.appspot.com/6850073/diff/6004/scm/define-markup-commands.scm#newcode3299
> > scm/define-markup-commands.scm:3299: ;; If there is a ledger, move
the dots in
> > X-direction to avoid collision.
> > is this comment true?  I can't see how the condition below checks
for ledger.

> You're right, the comment is misleading.
> I selected ledgered glyphs for whole and half rests for all styles,
apart from
> the listed ones.
> Depending on the decision which glyphs are taken (see above), I'll
change the
> comment and/or the code.

I don't know whether it's relevant or not, but (in the default style)
there's a ledgered variant for breve rest too (though not for longa).

http://codereview.appspot.com/6850073/