Re: Distance of a grob from its reference point

[Paolo Prete]

Then, do you agree that this causes that the \offset command is broken at least for the X/Y-offset properties of any grob?

Please correct me if I'm wrong. I would be very happy to see a solution or an alternative for making *fine tuning* while preserving the avoid-collisions algo.

In addition, I wonder if is there a way to get the final positioning (and then the actual distance from the reference point) by overriding some stuff in the .scm code. This is how I generated the html file instead of the svg one.

Thanks for your help,

Paolo

On Wed, Jan 15, 2020 at 4:52 AM Carl Sorensen <address@hidden> wrote:

 

 

From: Paolo Prete <address@hidden>
Date: Tuesday, January 14, 2020 at 8:10 PM
To: Aaron Hill <address@hidden>
Cc: Lilypond-User Mailing List <address@hidden>
Subject: Re: Distance of a grob from its reference point

 

 

 

 

I really can't count how many times I had to to that in so many scores. And there's no way to do that automagically. Really no way. 

Otherwise I would not have asked what I'm asking.

Then I'm forced to use the extra-offset property for now. 

Hope that someone could solve this issue. I'm sure there's a way for doing that, without changing the code and whole Lilypond would have a great benefit from it.

 

I’m sure that within the current code base there is no way to solve this issue in the means you have proposed.  When the Y-offset property of a grob is an unpure-pure-container, final positioning is done *after* \offset is applied to the unpure-pure-container value.  And then collision avoidance is applied, along with “automagic” placement. So the only way to solve this problem with the current code base is to use extra-offset.  But then you also get to do your own collision avoidance.

 

I’m sorry, but I think this is the current state of LilyPond’s placement algorithms.  And that’s why I prefer to find ways to tweak the placement algorithms, as opposed to tweaking the grobs.

 

Thanks,

 

Carl