[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
accidental placement (was "Re: 2.1.7-3!!")
From: |
Han-Wen Nienhuys |
Subject: |
accidental placement (was "Re: 2.1.7-3!!") |
Date: |
Sun, 18 Jan 2004 00:46:37 +0100 |
address@hidden writes:
> Hello, all --
>
> Han-Wen wrote:
> >>> I suppose the distance should be increased
> >>> if the acc is before a downstem. I added a TODO.
> >>
> >> Super!
> >> (By the way, if I wanted to experiment on this, what
> >> property/settings/code would I need to modify/create?)
> >
> > probably right-padding of AccidentalPlacement. (not sure)
>
> I think that would affect *all* accidentals, not just the first, right?
No.
--> 1.5 space = 6 pt
> sharp = 5.1 pt (85% of recommended)
> flat = 4.5 pt (75% of recommended)
> natural = 3.6 pt (60% [!!] of recommended)
>
> Here's a sample measure:
>
> To my eye, they're all too close, but in particular, the naturals are
> downright crowded.
>
> Now, I'm not certain that they should all be set a full 1.5 spaces as
> per Ross -- even when "right justified" to compensate for the
> difference in glyph widths, to my eye that's a little much (though not
> unbearable), :
>
>
>
> In these days of high-resolution output, something a little closer to
> the note seems appropriate and feasible -- here's a compromise (5.5
> points instead of a full 6):
>
>
>
> To my eye, that's more pleasing than the default (in fact, a couple of
> 1/10ths of a point more might be even better).
>
> Anyone have thoughts?
>
> Regards,
> Kieren._______________________________________________
> Lilypond-user mailing list
> address@hidden
> http://mail.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
--
Han-Wen Nienhuys | address@hidden | http://www.xs4all.nl/~hanwen
- 2.1.7-3!!, Kieren Richard MacMillan, 2004/01/14
Re: 2.1.7-3!!, Ray McKinney, 2004/01/16