Re: Allows slurs to break at barlines. (issue 7424049)

[address@hidden]

On 20 mars 2013, at 03:24, address@hidden wrote:

> On 2013/03/19 22:37:14, wl_gnu.org wrote:
>> >> After some consideration, I consider the name \broken suboptimal
> since
>> >> it implies two pieces.  Two other possibilities would be \detached
> and
>> >> \fake.
>> >
>> > I vote for detached.
> 
>> I vote for \broken.  For me, it doesn't imply two pieces.  This was
>> David's first, quick suggestion, and I think it's good for exactly
>> this reason.
> 
> The first suggestion just picked this off the proposed music event name.
> Here is why I consider \fake or \detached better:
> 
> when I see \broken\< or \broken\!, this does not really help me figure
> out where to use them.  \broken\! actually looks, uh, broken.  How do
> you break an end spanner?
> 
> However, \fake\< or \fake\! immediately make clear that we are talking
> about something still being used in the function of a starting and
> ending spanner, respectively.

Trying to put myself in the shoes of the average user, \fake would not mean a 
function that uses a fake post event, but rather a function that produces a 
\fake something.  I would think "this makes a fake slur", which is not the case.

I like \detached because it describes accurately what is going on - if I were 
reading the manual and saw that \detached ( created a slur detached from 
noteheads, I'd remember the command.  \broken slightly less because we are not 
always breaking something (we are only doing that with \breakSlur).

Cheers,
MS