Re: Implement make-bow-stencil, make-tie-stencil for use in markup-commands undertie and overtie (issue 270640043 by address@hidden)

[thomasmorley65]

On 2015/11/13 21:51:19, dak wrote:
> Sorry for yet finding more stuff that, after all, could likely be
improved.  At
> least I did so pretty quickly this time.

No problem!
The code became so much better during revision!
I have to work too much in my regular job to upload more than one
patch-set per working-day. Though, I made the experience looking at the
code after a day or so is sometimes very helpful.
Thanks a lot for your review.



https://codereview.appspot.com/270640043/diff/60001/scm/define-markup-commands.scm
> File scm/define-markup-commands.scm (right):


https://codereview.appspot.com/270640043/diff/60001/scm/define-markup-commands.scm#newcode623
> scm/define-markup-commands.scm:623: (direction DOWN)
> Should this markup command be called "undertie" or should it rather be
"tie",
> with "undertie" explicitly overriding `direction'?

> Because the rather explicit name '\undertie' seems a bit inconsistent
with the
> behavior of

> {
>    c'1^\markup \undertie hm
> }

> where the direction is determined by the direction specified for the
TextScript.

Hm, this was _not_ intended.
In this case a Tie _below_ the arg should be printed. For ties above the
arg \overtie was defined.

Though, thinking (a little) about it, we could go for
a)
two commands (under- and overtie) independant from direction-modifiers
or
b)
one tie-markup-command letting the user specify direction via \override
(direction . ...) and/or direction-modifiers

I'm undecided for now, opinions?


> https://codereview.appspot.com/270640043/diff/60001/scm/stencil.scm
> File scm/stencil.scm (right):


https://codereview.appspot.com/270640043/diff/60001/scm/stencil.scm#newcode86
> scm/stencil.scm:86: (interval-index '(0 . 1) offset-index))
> This is just (+ 0.1 (* 0.3 angularity)) I think and right-control
would then be
> (- 1 left-control).

great catch


> I think that with the points being based on (0 . 1), the combined
> interval-index/offset-index calculation (which never was hotness
itself) is not
> exactly making things clearer.


https://codereview.appspot.com/270640043/