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

[address@hidden]

On 20 mars 2013, at 07:50, David Kastrup <address@hidden> wrote:

> "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.

If one is quoting another instrument starting in mid-measure, why wouldn't that 
make 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.

Ok, I'm getting what you're saying.  I still don't like "fake" just because the 
begin and start are still real.  They are just offset.

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

What is not real about the endpoint?  If I jump on a train in between two 
stations, it is still a real getting-on-board.

> 
>> 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.

This is a good idea.

> 
>> 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.

Perhaps non-musical?

> 
>> 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.

I completely agree.  It's just that "fake" in English means false or 
counterfeit.  It needs another word, just don't know what yet.  unchained? free?

Cheers,
MS