Fret diagram fixes

Fret diagram fixes

- fix padding and size of mute/open signs when size is overridden
- fix first fret label position (maybe this was not a problem?)
- allow non numeric fingers (e.g. for thumb)
- allow fully customizable first fret label
- allow per-finger dot color change

[nicolas.sceaux, 2011-02-17 16:17:29]

Hi,

Here is a patch for fret diagrams, but as I have very little knowledge of them I
may well be wrong on some points.

First, it fixes sizing issues, when the size property is overridden: the xo
signs became too big, and too far from the first fret. It seems that there was a
unnecessary "* size".

Then, it adds the possibility to use letters for fingers. On the book I'm
reading, "P" is used for the thumb ("pouce" in French).

A new feature is also to invert a dot color, on a per-dot basis. Also on the
book I'm referring to, this is used to show where the fundamental note is on a
chord.

Finally, the patch adds a way to customize the first fret label.
There is also a modification of the first fret label position, but maybe this is
a mistake. Is the label supposed to be vertically centered with the fret line?
or the bottom of the label should be aligned with the fret line? In the former
case, I should cancel the modification.

I'm posting pics in a follow up of this post, to illustrate these modifications.

Nicolas

[Carl, 2011-02-17 18:39:14]

On 2011/02/17 16:17:29, nicolas.sceaux wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> Here is a patch for fret diagrams, but as I have very little knowledge of them
I
> may well be wrong on some points.
> 
> First, it fixes sizing issues, when the size property is overridden: the xo
> signs became too big, and too far from the first fret. It seems that there was
a
> unnecessary "* size".

Looks good to me.  Thanks for checking this out.

> 
> Then, it adds the possibility to use letters for fingers. On the book I'm
> reading, "P" is used for the thumb ("pouce" in French).
> 
> A new feature is also to invert a dot color, on a per-dot basis. Also on the
> book I'm referring to, this is used to show where the fundamental note is on a
> chord.

I like the fact that you've done this, and that you've done it only for the
verbose style diagram.  That way, you haven't added complexity to the terse
diagram.

> 
> Finally, the patch adds a way to customize the first fret label.
> There is also a modification of the first fret label position, but maybe this
is
> a mistake. Is the label supposed to be vertically centered with the fret line?
> or the bottom of the label should be aligned with the fret line? In the former
> case, I should cancel the modification.

From every reference I have, it is supposed to be vertically centered with the
fret line.  That was the intent in the original code.

Thanks,

Carl

P.S.  Can you adjust your mime-types entry for .scm files so that side-by-side
diffs in Rietveld work?

http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/lilypond-devel/2011-01/msg00583.html

[Carl, 2011-02-17 18:39:21]

On 2011/02/17 16:17:29, nicolas.sceaux wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> Here is a patch for fret diagrams, but as I have very little knowledge of them
I
> may well be wrong on some points.
> 
> First, it fixes sizing issues, when the size property is overridden: the xo
> signs became too big, and too far from the first fret. It seems that there was
a
> unnecessary "* size".

Looks good to me.  Thanks for checking this out.

> 
> Then, it adds the possibility to use letters for fingers. On the book I'm
> reading, "P" is used for the thumb ("pouce" in French).
> 
> A new feature is also to invert a dot color, on a per-dot basis. Also on the
> book I'm referring to, this is used to show where the fundamental note is on a
> chord.

I like the fact that you've done this, and that you've done it only for the
verbose style diagram.  That way, you haven't added complexity to the terse
diagram.

> 
> Finally, the patch adds a way to customize the first fret label.
> There is also a modification of the first fret label position, but maybe this
is
> a mistake. Is the label supposed to be vertically centered with the fret line?
> or the bottom of the label should be aligned with the fret line? In the former
> case, I should cancel the modification.

From every reference I have, it is supposed to be vertically centered with the
fret line.  That was the intent in the original code.

Thanks,

Carl

P.S.  Can you adjust your mime-types entry for .scm files so that side-by-side
diffs in Rietveld work?

http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/lilypond-devel/2011-01/msg00583.html

[Marek, 2011-02-21 12:48:53]

I have added new tracker issue for this patch:
http://code.google.com/p/lilypond/issues/detail?id=1530

[nicolas.sceaux, 2011-02-27 14:09:09]

On 2011/02/17 18:39:21, Carl wrote:
> On 2011/02/17 16:17:29, nicolas.sceaux wrote:
> 
> > There is also a modification of the first fret label position, but maybe
this
> is
> > a mistake. Is the label supposed to be vertically centered with the fret
line?
> > or the bottom of the label should be aligned with the fret line? In the
former
> > case, I should cancel the modification.
> 
> From every reference I have, it is supposed to be vertically centered with the
> fret line.  That was the intent in the original code.

I have uploaded a new version of the patch which fixes that.
It also includes a reg test for diagram scaling, and a new test case for custom
fret labels.
Does it seem OK?

> P.S.  Can you adjust your mime-types entry for .scm files so that side-by-side
> diffs in Rietveld work?
> 
> http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/lilypond-devel/2011-01/msg00583.html

Thanks. The tip did not work for me, but I hacked the git-cl script to force scm
mime type.

Nicolas

[Carl, 2011-02-27 14:17:45]

LGTM.

Thanks,

Carl


P.S.  Can you propose your patch to git-cl to the git-cl maintainers?  I think
that your approach is the right one.  But I don't want to have us in the
position of needing a custom git-cl.

[nicolas.sceaux, 2011-02-27 15:04:05]

Le 27 févr. 2011 à 15:17, Carl.D.Sorensen@gmail.com a écrit :

> P.S.  Can you propose your patch to git-cl to the git-cl maintainers?  I
> think that your approach is the right one.  But I don't want to have us
> in the position of needing a custom git-cl.

I thought git-cl was shipped in whatever lilydev is, and in that copy
of git-cl, a patch for lilypond usual mime types would be appropriate.
But for the general upstream git-cl, such a patch is not a good idea,
imho.

[Graham Percival, 2011-02-27 15:09:37]

On Sun, Feb 27, 2011 at 04:04:00PM +0100, Nicolas Sceaux wrote:
> Le 27 févr. 2011 à 15:17, Carl.D.Sorensen@gmail.com a écrit :
> 
> > P.S.  Can you propose your patch to git-cl to the git-cl maintainers?  I
> > think that your approach is the right one.  But I don't want to have us
> > in the position of needing a custom git-cl.
> 
> I thought git-cl was shipped in whatever lilydev is, and in that copy
> of git-cl, a patch for lilypond usual mime types would be appropriate.
> But for the general upstream git-cl, such a patch is not a good idea,

I can't claim to be familiar with this bug, but since git-cl's
main point is uploading stuff to rietveld, I'd say that being
unable to upload a particular type of text file is a pretty bad
bug.

If you don't think that a scm-specific solution is good, what
about a generic "treat every file like a text file" option?  We
could tell contributors to upload with
  git cl --txt
or something like that?  (of course, that would fail if somebody
was working on Documentation/pictures/ ,   sigh)

Cheers,
- Graham

[Graham Percival (old account), 2011-03-02 07:05:03]

LGTM