1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
|
Date: Tue, 5 Nov 1996 00:01:32 +0100
From: Werner Icking <Werner.Icking@gmd.de>
To: hanwen@stack.urc.tue.nl
Cc: dsimons@logicon.com
Subject: Re: font sizes.
> Date: Mon, 4 Nov 1996 22:37:54 +0100 (MET)
> From: Han-Wen Nienhuys <hanwen@stack.urc.tue.nl>
> >
> >There were different schemes when music was typeset by hand. If I remember
> >right Harder uses another scheme that Gomberg. Both scheme may be used
>
> Who are Harder and Gomberg? Do you have references?
Both are mentioned in the master thesis by Steinbach & Schofer who
invented M(u)TeX, the grandmother of all M...TeXs. The Musiclibrary
in Bonn has the harder (printed in 1948?) and there are not many books
I liked more to own.
The master thesis should be available at the CTAN archives under MuTeX
or MTEX maybe subdirectory DIPL (for Diplom). I have the TEX-source
and I may pack it to ftp.gmd.de if you are interested and can't find it
on CTAN.
================================================================
[breaking lines]
>
>Incidentally, I use a different approach in PMX, starting with the
>total number of systems for the piece instead of assuming a starting
>physical value for \elemskip. That's equivalent to setting the
>physical length of the whole piece if laid out in one long line.
>Knowing the total amount of scalable and fixed space I compute a
>starting physical value for \elemskip. I use that to get how many
>bars go in the first line. Then I force a line break there, remove
>those bars and their scalable and fixed space from the accounting, and
>start over with the second line, etc.
Since you are getting into technical details, I will show mine too: I
think my way is the most elegant algorithm i've seen so far. Some
terminology: I call a vertical group of symbols (notes) which start at
the same time a "column". Each line of a score has notes in it,
grouped in columns. The difference in starting time between those
columns makes it possible to determine ideal distances between those
columns.
Example:
time ----->
col1 col2 col3 col4
voice1 1 1
voice2 2 2 2 2
(1 is a whole note, 2 a half note.)
time_difference (col1 , col2) = 0.5 wholes,
time_difference (col1 , col3) = 1 wholes,
time_difference (col2 , col3) = 0.5 wholes,
etc.
these differences are translated into ideal distances (these translations
have been the subject of discussion in this thread).
distance (col1,col2) = 10 pt
distance (col1,col3) = 14.1 pt
distance (col2,col3) = 10 pt
etc.
as you can see, these distance are conflicting. So instead of
satisfying all those ideals simultaneously, a compromise is sought.
This is Columbus' egg: LilyPond attaches "springs" to each
column-pair. each spring has an equilibrium-position which is equal to
the above mentioned distance, so
spring (col1, col2) and spring(col2,col3) try to push column 1
and 3 away (to a distance of 20pt) from each other, whereas the spring
between col 1 and col 3 tries to pull those two together (to a
distance of 14.1 pt). The net result of this pushing and pulling is an
equilibrium situation (the pushing cancels the pulling), which can be
calculated as the solution of Quadratic program: it is the solution
with minimum potential energy, for you physicists out there.
This algorithm for doing one line, gives a "badness" parameter for
each line (the potential energy). Now one can use TeX's algorithm for
making paragraphs (using this new version of "badness"): one should
try to minimise the overall badness of a paragraph. LilyPond also uses the
concept of pre- and post-breaks.
(actually, it is a bit more complicated: each column also has a
minimum distance to other columns, to prevent symbols from running
into symbols of other columns.)
|
