Re: Issue 2535: Staccato on stem side alignment when other articulations are present (issue 196260043 by address@hidden)

[david . nalesnik]

On 2015/01/27 08:50:36, dak wrote:
> On 2015/01/27 07:52:05, lemzwerg wrote:
> > On 2015/01/27 07:26:53, dak wrote:
> > > It seems to me like this number-pair consists of two settings that
would
> > almost
> > > always be adjusted independently.  Wouldn't it make more sense to
make a
> > > separate property here?  That way, the user would not need to
remember and
> > > restate the setting he is not interested in.
> >
> > IMHO it's better to logically stick stuff together.  We already have
far too
> > much properties, and in this particular case I doubt that the user
will change
> > the values very often so I think the benefits of having a single
property are
> > exceeding the potential disadvantages.

> You can "logically stick stuff together" by naming it appropriately,
making them
> come next to each other in alphabet and thus in documentation.  You
state "the
> benefits of having a single property are exceeding the potential
disadvantages"
> but don't actually name a single such benefit.

> The main problem with having "far too many properties" is that one has
a lot of
> individual controls.  But you don't actually propose having fewer
controls but
> rather making it impossible to use one control without specifying a
value for
> the other one.  That's not a simplification but a complication.  And
we are not
> talking about something where the two values are related like in an
interval.

This change is motivated by the very small numbers of articulations
which behave differently when alone or in a compound articulation, so it
would make sense to add another property instead of requiring a longer
specification.  Only accidentals which belong to a ScriptColumn and
which have the new property set would be affected.

What would this property be named? snap-to-column? shift-in-column?

While I see the arguments for adding another property, I worry that in
so doing there is a risk of making all of this even more obscure.

> At any rate, this discussion may be idle: it is likely that we don't
need two
> separate settings anyway if it is feasible to align the whole accent
stack based
> on its notehead-closest member.  The only time when this might not
work is when
> stem and accents are on the same side of the notehead and wide accents
like --
> (or was that -_ ?) come into play.  I don't think this should happen
often, but
> at least with double-stemmed noteheads it would be hard to avoid.



https://codereview.appspot.com/196260043/