Re: Issues about optical spacing

I think it’s possible to respect someone’s hard work but provide feedback to make it even better. As the article shows, using Gourlay’s spacing algorithm has demonstrable limits in certain contexts involving polyrhythms. If you’re content seeing Lilypond perform no better than Finale, Sibelius, and Noteflight etc. (the status quo that perform the same way) in this particular area then that’s fine. However, if someone presents something which looks demonstrably better with math and examples to back it up, I would start paying attention. One of the criticisms of Lilypond is that it’s for computer scientists. I think that could be one of its greatest strengths.

On Tue, Jan 16, 2018 at 7:00 PM Tomohiro Tatejima <address@hidden> wrote:

Hello,

Yes I am not a specialist of music engraving and certainly I must respect why the implementer made current implementation.
Is there anyone who knows the reason of current behavior?

Regards,
Tatejima Tomohiro

2018/01/17 午前7:16 "Simon Albrecht" <address@hidden>:

On 16.01.2018 19:05, Tomohiro Tatejima wrote:

As for first issue, I can understand that `f d` does not need so much
space between notes as `f f`, as `d` does not collide with the stem of
`f`. But what I cannot understand is that `f a` or `f b` needs more
space than `f f` or `f g` (assume all notes are \stemUp'd). I suppose
they should be given same spacing as `f f` or `f g`.

I’m sure that this was given a lot of thought when the optical spacing was implemented and they clearly knew what they were doing. “seems a little odd to me” is not a reason for changing it, you’ll need to provide really good evidence why this should be changed.

Best, Simon

_______________________________________________
lilypond-user mailing list
address@hidden
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user

From:	Chad Linsley
Subject:	Re: Issues about optical spacing
Date:	Wed, 17 Jan 2018 01:53:48 +0000