Re: Augmentation dot positioning

[Carl Sorensen]

On 9/15/16 8:01 AM, "Chris Yate" <address@hidden> wrote:

>On Thu, 15 Sep 2016 at 14:36 Chris Yate <address@hidden> wrote:
>
>
>> According to Gould, I believe that dots limit 3 is the correct setting.
>
>
>
>
>
>OK. On reflection, perhaps I can see your reasoning, although I disagree
>that the current situation reliably produces the notation one would
>expect. And it's insufficiently controllable.

I believe I agree that it's insufficiently controllable.

>
>
>In any case, I might argue "chord-dots-limit" isn't unambiguously
>explained
>
>
>". Limits the column of dots on each chord to the height of the chord
>plus chord-dots-limit staff-positions."

I would change the wording to say something like "The maximum distance
between the extreme dot on a dot column and the closest note on a chord
must be less than or equal to chord-dots-limit staff positions."

>
>
>In situation 1 in my test cases, the height of the chord is 4
>staff-positions... or is it 2 and a half staff-spaces?

In situation 1, the dot in the A space is one staff-space (two staff
positions) above the top of the chord; the dot in the B space is one-half
staff space (one staff position) below the bottom of the chord.

> 
>
>
>Should I want in example 2, to have dots on the D, F, A spaces and not on
>B, then chord-dots-limit=1 might be interpreted to suppress the dot
>that's 2 staff positions away from the chord (on B space) and place one 1
>staff position _above_ the chord, on
> A.  The dotsUp and dotsDown settings don't appear to have any effect
>here.

I see your point here.  It seems that we ought to be able to set
chords-dots-limit to 2, and then get the dots on the D, F and A instead of
B, D, and F.  And perhaps we have no property that will allow this to
happen.

Thanks,

Carl