[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Augmentation dot positioning
From: |
Carl Sorensen |
Subject: |
Re: Augmentation dot positioning |
Date: |
Tue, 25 Oct 2016 14:35:36 +0000 |
User-agent: |
Microsoft-MacOutlook/14.6.9.160926 |
On 9/19/16 7:50 AM, "Carl Sorensen" <address@hidden> wrote:
>
>I agree with all of these points, and am working on an improved algorithm.
>
>Once I get the algorithm solidified, I know how to implement it.
>
>But I haven't got the algorithm solidified yet.
>
>Thanks,
>
>Carl
OK, I have now made a change (not yet submitted for review) to move the
dot-positioning algorithms into Scheme.
And I have implemented a new default algorithm, which tries to do what
Chris and Werner liked, rather than strictly implementing the Gould
algorithm.
I am also working on a Gould algorithm that is user-selectable.
At any rate, I have some results from Chris's test file. I have adjusted
the text to contain my assessment of the results. Please let me know if
you disagree with any of my assessments.
chord-dots-limit = 1 is better in most circumstances. It is also
consistent with Powell.
chord-dots-limit = 2 is better in a few circumstances.
Feedback would be appreciated.
Thanks,
Carl
dots[1].pdf
Description: dots[1].pdf
- Re: Augmentation dot positioning,
Carl Sorensen <=