Re: bar line interface / repat structure considerations

[Marc Hohl]

Am 13.03.2013 17:05, schrieb Janek Warchoł:
> Hi Marc&all,
>
> On Wed, Mar 13, 2013 at 10:09 AM, Marc Hohl <address@hidden> wrote:
> > make
> > sure you sit comfortable and have a nice cup of coffee, tea or whatever
> > around...
>
> these words actually reminded me that i had a tea waiting, and thanks
> to you it didn't get totally cold before i drank it :)

You're welcome ;-)

> > a) replace the current mechanism by a command
> > (define-bar-line <shortcut>
> > (<bar-glyph> :prebreak <prebreak-glyph>
> > :postbreak <postbreak-glyph>
> > :span-bar <span-glyph>
> > :prebreak-span <pre-span>
> > :postbreak-span <post-span>))
> >
> > where :prebreak, :postbreak, :spanbar, :prebreak-span and :postbreak-span
> > arguments are optional,and we define (in quasi-Lua syntax :-)
> >
> > <prebreak-glyph> = <prebreak-glyph> or <bar-glyph>
> > <postbreak-glyph> = <postbreak-glyph> or #f
> >
> > <span-glyph> = <span-glyph> or <bar-glyph>
> > <pre-span> = <pre-span> or <prebreak-glyph>
> > <post-span> = <post-span> or <postbreak-glyph>
>
> I like this, except that i'm not sure whether the keywords :prebreak
> :postbreak etc don't clutter the view too much.

I am not sure whether there are alternatives despite from the
method we use now (a list of strings in which the order of the
arguments is predefined - which is overkill for upto six arguments IMHO.

On the other hand, I don't think that many users need their own
bar line definitions, and then again, the view may be cluttered,
but easy to understand.

Marc