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

[David Kastrup]

"address@hidden" <address@hidden> writes:

> On 20 mars 2013, at 06:07, David Kastrup <address@hidden> wrote:
>
>> "address@hidden" <address@hidden> writes:
>> 
>>> 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.
>> 
>> It makes a fake slur start or end.
>
> The word "fake" still doesn't sit right with me...  There is nothing
> fake about the slur:
>
> { a \fake ( b c d ) }

Mike, that code does not even make any sense.  You would not place a
fake slur start or fake slur end anywhere except right after or right
before a visual discontinuity from a repeat construct.  You probably did
not understand what I wrote, probably because "it makes a fake slur
start or end" is not grammatically clear.  I mean "It makes a fake
slur-start or a fake slur-end" by that.

> It is real.

The slur is real.  The end point isn't.

> The function, to me, should describe an attribute of the slur.

But it doesn't.  It describes an attribute of its visual start or end
point.

> The slur looks detached and broken, but not fake.

But the attachment is fake, and the slur will get properly attached to
the proper end points when repeats are unfolded.

> There are commands like slurDashed, slurDotted, etc. that describe
> what the output will be like.

And the output will be like that even when repeats are unfolded.

> I think it's important to stay in that logic.  If we're going to use
> this for many spanners, my vote would be \broken.

But it is not the slur that is "broken" but rather its visual connection
to _one_ or even _two_ of its end points.  You can perfectly well and
meaningfully have an alternative written as

{ \fake\( c d e f \fake\) }

and when unfolding, the phrasing slur will start at some point preceding
this passage and end at some point succeeding it.

> The slurs look broken,

If you want to, but the whole of
( \broken) \broken( \broken) \broken( )
is just _one_ slur broken into three pieces, not one whole slur and two
broken slurs.  That logic is more apparent with writing
( \fake) \fake( \fake) \fake( )

The breaking occurs at artificial points not related to the music
function of the slur, and it will get dissolved when unfolding repeats.

The break of the slur does not occur where \broken is written, but
rather it is at a visual discontinuity logically connected with matching
pairs of \broken) ... \broken(.  Your above example suggests that this
relation does not seem clear to you.

> and things like beams and hairpins will definitely look broken as well
> if we split them using the same sort of algorithm.

Sure, and again the split will be between matching pairs of artificial
end and start points that are not logical end and start points and will
disappear when repeats are unfolded and the broken construct gets joined
visually as well as logically.

> To me, something can look "broken" and this designation does not have
> any bearing on if all the pieces are there or not.  It is a quality of
> the object.

No, it is a quality of the respective visual (but not logical) start and
end points.  And I would prefer a naming choice that makes it easier for
people to understand what they are doing.  You are making a strong case
for this being hard enough to make it prudent to avoid fallacious
naming.

-- 
David Kastrup