[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: hairpin length
From: |
David Nalesnik |
Subject: |
Re: hairpin length |
Date: |
Sat, 18 Jun 2016 18:48:31 -0500 |
Hi,
On Sat, Jun 18, 2016 at 11:11 AM, David Nalesnik
<address@hidden> wrote:
> Hi Simon,
>
> On Sat, Jun 18, 2016 at 10:37 AM, Simon Albrecht <address@hidden> wrote:
>> On 18.06.2016 17:27, David Nalesnik wrote:
>>>
>>> (I would propose that bound-padding be redefined as a pair in the code
>>> base. Broken-bound-padding, too. The latter is not replaced with a
>>> broken-bound-padding-pair in this code experiment, but that should be easily
>>> done.)
>>
>>
>> Well, it should be pretty easy to use number-or-pair?, shouldn’t it? That
>> way you can use both as a matter of convenience.
>>
>
> That should be workable.
>
> Also, I see now that the situation with broken hairpins is a bit more
> complex (bound-padding still does have an impact). Will see what I
> can do about that, and your suggestion, Simon.
>
> David
OK, I think I took the wrong tack with bound-padding. Evidently,
bound-padding is designed to change hairpin endpoints when dynamics
are present.
The attached code introduces the idea of 'shorten-pair with hairpins.
My first idea, should've stuck with that.
Positive values shorten the hairpin, negative values lengthen it.
Hope this proves useful.
David
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
hairpin-shorten-pair.ly
Description: Text Data
Re: hairpin length, Stephen MacNeil, 2016/06/13