add glyphs for 256th, 512th and 1024th flags and rests (issue 336590043 by lilypond@maltemeyn.de)

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
8 messages Options
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

add glyphs for 256th, 512th and 1024th flags and rests (issue 336590043 by lilypond@maltemeyn.de)

Thomas Morley-2
I suggest to update regtests ‘markup-rest.ly’ and
‘markup-rest-styles.ly’ as well.
If no glyph for a certain style is found the default is taken anyway,
but it would be nice if the new glyphs would be demonstrated via markup
as well.
Also, it deserves an entry in changes, imho.

https://codereview.appspot.com/336590043/
_______________________________________________
lilypond-devel mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: add glyphs for 256th, 512th and 1024th flags and rests (issue 336590043 by lilypond@maltemeyn.de)

Malte Meyn-3
Reviewers: thomasmorley651,

Message:
On 2018/02/21 22:44:42, thomasmorley651 wrote:
> I suggest to update regtests ‘markup-rest.ly’ and
‘markup-rest-styles.ly’ as
> well.
> If no glyph for a certain style is found the default is taken anyway,
but it
> would be nice if the new glyphs would be demonstrated via markup as
well.

Do we really need that triple occurence? OTOH, could you suggest where
to regtest the flags?

> Also, it deserves an entry in changes, imho.

Agreed. There is at least one other patch I made that needs a Changes
entry (issue 5247, maybe 5249, maybe 3208 after 5258 is fixed too) but
at the moment I’m not able to make doc for testing (see list).

Description:
add glyphs for 256th, 512th and 1024th flags and rests

This post on lilypond-user asks for small rhythmic values (though it
doesn’t explicitely mention rests and unbeamed/flagged notes):
https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/lilypond-user/2018-02/msg00614.html

1024th is the shortest duration suggested by SMuFL.

Needs special focus in review:
• forms of downstem flags

Needs improvement but I don’t know how to do:
• dot position for very short rests (see regtest)

Contains also:
• adjust stem lengths for 256th, 512th, and 1024th flags
• Notation Reference: change shortest value from 128th to 1024th
• add very short rests to regtest

Please review this at https://codereview.appspot.com/336590043/

Affected files (+650, -135 lines):
   M Documentation/notation/rhythms.itely
   M input/regression/rest.ly
   M mf/feta-flags.mf
   M mf/feta-rests.mf
   M ps/encodingdefs.ps
   M scm/define-grobs.scm


_______________________________________________
lilypond-devel mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: add glyphs for 256th, 512th and 1024th flags and rests (issue 336590043 by lilypond@maltemeyn.de)

lemzwerg
In reply to this post by Thomas Morley-2
LGTM, thanks!

https://codereview.appspot.com/336590043/

_______________________________________________
lilypond-devel mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: add glyphs for 256th, 512th and 1024th flags and rests (issue 336590043 by lilypond@maltemeyn.de)

Torsten Hämmerle
In reply to this post by Thomas Morley-2
On 2018/02/23 07:30:00, lemzwerg wrote:
> LGTM, thanks!

In my opinion, there's a misplacement of rest dots. Therefore,

file scm/output-lib.scm (dots::calc-staff-position)

will have to be adapted, too (see related image and comment in issue
#5277)
There's no appropriate code for log > 7 (the new rest glyphs)

My suggestion:
-     ((= log 7) 4)
+     ((>= log  7) (- log 3));

That way, there's no need to add a separate line for each duration.

Just writing this as a comment because I'm terribly unsure about the
correct usage of rietveld and I don't want to mess with Malte's coding.

All the best,
Torsten

https://codereview.appspot.com/336590043/

_______________________________________________
lilypond-devel mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: add glyphs for 256th, 512th and 1024th flags and rests (issue 336590043 by lilypond@maltemeyn.de)

Malte Meyn-3
In reply to this post by Thomas Morley-2
On 2018/02/23 11:18:38, Be-3 wrote:
> On 2018/02/23 07:30:00, lemzwerg wrote:
> > LGTM, thanks!

> In my opinion, there's a misplacement of rest dots. Therefore,

> file scm/output-lib.scm (dots::calc-staff-position)

> will have to be adapted, too (see related image and comment in issue
#5277)

Thanks for the hint! I looked for it at every single C++ file that has
to do with rests or dots but didn’t know or think about output-lib.scm

> There's no appropriate code for log > 7 (the new rest glyphs)

> My suggestion:
> -     ((= log 7) 4)
> +     ((>= log  7) (- log 3));

> That way, there's no need to add a separate line for each duration.

Probably that won’t be enough, it has to be 7,8 → 4 and 9,10 → 5; but
the idea is correct. Maybe I’ll replace the cond by an if and case ;)

> Just writing this as a comment because I'm terribly unsure about the
correct
> usage of rietveld and I don't want to mess with Malte's coding.

Commenting is the correct way in this case. If you want to comment on
one of the files that have been changed you can add a comment to a
single code line by clicking on that line.

https://codereview.appspot.com/336590043/
_______________________________________________
lilypond-devel mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: add glyphs for 256th, 512th and 1024th flags and rests (issue 336590043 by lilypond@maltemeyn.de)

pkx166h
In reply to this post by Thomas Morley-2
On 2018/02/23 11:18:38, Be-3 wrote:
> On 2018/02/23 07:30:00, lemzwerg wrote:
> > LGTM, thanks!

> In my opinion, there's a misplacement of rest dots. Therefore,

> file scm/output-lib.scm (dots::calc-staff-position)

> will have to be adapted, too (see related image and comment in issue
#5277)
> There's no appropriate code for log > 7 (the new rest glyphs)

Are we simply seeing another symptom of something I (when patch testing)
have to now ignore?

See the thread:
https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/lilypond-devel/2017-09/msg00013.html

James

https://codereview.appspot.com/336590043/

_______________________________________________
lilypond-devel mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: add glyphs for 256th, 512th and 1024th flags and rests (issue 336590043 by lilypond@maltemeyn.de)

Malte Meyn-3
In reply to this post by Thomas Morley-2
On 2018/02/23 12:09:34, pkx166h wrote:
> Are we simply seeing another symptom of something I (when patch
testing) have to
> now ignore?

> See the thread:

https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/lilypond-devel/2017-09/msg00013.html

No. But I’ll put this patch on needs_work now because it does need work
and I won’t have time to do it for the next two days.

https://codereview.appspot.com/336590043/
_______________________________________________
lilypond-devel mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: add glyphs for 256th, 512th and 1024th flags and rests (issue 336590043 by lilypond@maltemeyn.de)

Torsten Hämmerle
In reply to this post by Thomas Morley-2
On 2018/02/23 11:41:13, Malte Meyn wrote:
> Probably that won’t be enough, it has to be 7,8 → 4 and 9,10 → 5; but
the idea
> is correct. Maybe I’ll replace the cond by an if and case ;)

Ah, yes, it's true that the rest height is identical for 128th/256th and
512th/1024th, therefore my "calculated" values weren't correct (even if
the output was OK).

So I agree on 7,8 → 4, but it has to be 10 → 6 ;)


https://codereview.appspot.com/336590043/
_______________________________________________
lilypond-devel mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel