Adds stem acknowledgement to beam collision engraver to fix issue 795.

Adds stem acknowledgement to beam collision engraver to fix issue 795.

[MikeSol, 2011-03-31 15:32:22]

Cheers,
Mike

[Graham Percival (old account), 2011-03-31 21:39:31]

Are you able to build a regtest comparison with this patch?  I can't, but I also
haven't been able to identify the problematic file(s) within 10 minutes of
poking around.

[mike_apollinemike.com, 2011-03-31 21:48:06]

On Mar 31, 2011, at 5:39 PM, percival.music.ca@gmail.com wrote:

> Are you able to build a regtest comparison with this patch?  I can't,
> but I also haven't been able to identify the problematic file(s) within
> 10 minutes of poking around.
> 
> http://codereview.appspot.com/4337045/

\relative c'{
 d16 e f \grace d'8 g,16
}
Added to beam-collision-grace.ly

New patch set posted.

Cheers,
MS

[Graham Percival (old account), 2011-03-31 22:39:07]

Lots of changes to stem lengths, but it compiles and nothing makes me go
"definitely ick".

[mike_apollinemike.com, 2011-04-01 01:05:13]

On Mar 31, 2011, at 6:39 PM, percival.music.ca@gmail.com wrote:

> Lots of changes to stem lengths, but it compiles and nothing makes me go
> "definitely ick".
> 
> http://codereview.appspot.com/4337045/

I'm a fan of most of the changes in the regtests.

I'm amazed you got it to compile, though.  Mine segfaulted, at which point I
changed it to disregard stems with beams.  New patch set uploaded.

Cheers,
MS

[Graham Percival (old account), 2011-04-01 15:13:31]

What happened to
  input/regression/staccato-pos.ly
  input/regression/beam-multiple-cross-staff.ly
?  it looks like those are currently broken, and this patch fixes it?  Is this
just my system acting weird, or did we really miss two broken regtests earlier?

oh wait, the beam-multiple- regtest has a collision between beam and notehead. 
It still looks better than before, but you might want to take a look at it.

[lilypond.patches, 2011-04-01 16:53:08]

Patch listed.

[MikeSol, 2011-04-05 21:35:21]

Just kickin' up some dirt, as I haven't heard on this for 4 days.

Now that dynamic beam collision is pushed, I can see this patch going one of two
ways:

I update quote-during.ly to kill beam collision avoidance.
I don't update it (preferred option).

I'd like to get this pushed in the next 24 hours if possible (which will require
2 LGTMs).  This way, << { c'8 [ s c' ] } \\ { s c''8 s } >> will be prettier.

Cheers,
Mike

[t.daniels_treda.co.uk, 2011-04-06 08:19:49]

mtsolo@gmail.com wrote Tuesday, April 05, 2011 10:35 PM


> I'd like to get this pushed in the next 24 hours if possible 
> (which will
> require 2 LGTMs).  This way, << { c'8 [ s c' ] } \\ { s c''8 s } 
>  >> will
> be prettier.

Here's one.  LGTM.

It certainly improves the revised regtest, but
I don't see any change in the example above.
Should I?

Trevor

[mike_apollinemike.com, 2011-04-06 09:56:30]

On Apr 6, 2011, at 4:19 AM, Trevor Daniels wrote:

> 
> mtsolo@gmail.com wrote Tuesday, April 05, 2011 10:35 PM
> 
> 
>> I'd like to get this pushed in the next 24 hours if possible (which will
>> require 2 LGTMs).  This way, << { c'8 [ s c' ] } \\ { s c''8 s }  >> will
>> be prettier.
> 
> Here's one.  LGTM.
> 
> It certainly improves the revised regtest, but
> I don't see any change in the example above.
> Should I?
> 
> Trevor

Sorry, I meant << { c'8 [ s c' ] } \\ { s \stemUp a'8 s }  >>

One more LGTM & issue 795 can be retired. Alternatively, if you think I
shouldn't push, lemme know!

I've tweaked the patch slightly after my most recent push (added one line to
define-grobs.scm to account for the stem-interface), so if you want to run the
regtesets, make sure to work from that most recent version.

Cheers,
MS

[hanwenn, 2011-04-06 13:55:59]

LGTM

http://codereview.appspot.com/4337045/diff/18002/lily/beam-collision-engraver.cc
File lily/beam-collision-engraver.cc (right):

http://codereview.appspot.com/4337045/diff/18002/lily/beam-collision-engraver...
lily/beam-collision-engraver.cc:108: skip_me = true;
i'd use 

 continue;

for jumping to the next one.

[mike_apollinemike.com, 2011-04-09 01:28:26]

On Apr 6, 2011, at 9:55 AM, hanwenn@gmail.com wrote:

> LGTM
> 
> 
>
http://codereview.appspot.com/4337045/diff/18002/lily/beam-collision-engraver.cc
> File lily/beam-collision-engraver.cc (right):
> 
>
http://codereview.appspot.com/4337045/diff/18002/lily/beam-collision-engraver...
> lily/beam-collision-engraver.cc:108: skip_me = true;
> i'd use
> 
> continue;
> 
> for jumping to the next one.
> 
> http://codereview.appspot.com/4337045/
> 
> _______________________________________________
> lilypond-devel mailing list
> lilypond-devel@gnu.org
> http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel

Pushed.
3e1a1c11067f26331b1c794e296c65b0984054a9

Cheers,
MS