Re: Using change staff in tight spaces leads to wrongly positionednotes with duplet in crossing notes

[Keith OHara]

On Mon, 10 Jun 2013 11:23:08 -0700, Phil Holmes <address@hidden> wrote:

> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Keith OHara"
> Subject: Re: Using change staff in tight spaces leads to wrongly
> positionednotes with duplet in crossing notes
>
>
> > Phil Holmes <email <at> philholmes.net> writes:
> >
> > > Should I just go ahead and raise a bug report?
> > If
> only it didn't do this?

If only I could use a mouse.

You might give the bug-list a couple days to help minimize the example,
but I would think non-minimal bug-reports are fine if they isolate the
problem.  In this example the second measure with different rhythm that
avoids the problem might be a useful clue.

If I were to try to fix this I would start by minimizing, because I would
add print statements to show me the key distances set by each rule that
the note spacing applies, and compare with what I expected them to be.

Probably it could be one measure, with a short \paper {line-width or
line-length or whatever}.   Maybe a kneed beam on a single staff also
shows the problem.  Probably the interleaved rhythm is key
1       2       3       1
1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  1
but maybe not the tuplets.  Just to be sure the tuplet math isn't causing
trouble I'd try it with equivalent interleaving rhythm in 24/16 time
using dotted notes.

It might be the same cause as issue 3304, or we might be missing a
rarely-needed rule that stems should be in order, even in emergencies
of tight spacing.  I think it is a bug, not a missing rule, because
the sequence of notes  fis b a  are right on top of each other, while
the other notes do not look like they are having an emergency of tight
spacing.