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

[address@hidden]

Sent from my iPhone

On 20 mars 2013, at 16:38, David Kastrup <address@hidden> wrote:

> Werner LEMBERG <address@hidden> writes:
> 
>>> I think any further proposals should _definitely_ explain how to write
>>> the given example
>>> 
>>> g f e d( 
>>> \repeat { c d) e f ( }
>>> \alternatives {
>>>  { g) a b( a \fake) }
>>>  { \fake( e) d c( d \fake) }
>>>  { \fake( d) c d( e }
>>> }
>>> d c) d c
>> 
>> Hmm.  It's not clear to me why lilypond can't handle this
>> automatically:
>> 
>>  g f e d( 
>>  \repeat { c d) e f( }
>>  \alternatives {
>>    { g) a b( a }
>>    { e) d c( d }
>>    { d) c d( e }
>>  }
>>  d c) d c
> 
> The example actually is a bit too orthogonal to illustrate all pertinent
> points.  Here are some variations:
> 
> g f e d( \fake)
> \repeat { \fake( c d) e f ( }
> [...]
> 
> Now the first slur will _not_ lead into the repeat unbroken, a valid
> variation.
> 
> g f e d( \fake)
> \repeat { \fake\single\slurDotted( c d) e f 
> [...]
> 
> This is typical for lyrics where there is a melisma leading into the
> first repeat but not into all subsequent ones.  If there is no melisma
> into the first repeat but in some alternative, you'd write instead
> 
> g f e d
> \repeat { \fake\single\slurDotted( c d) e f }
> [...]
> 
> Now since \unfoldRepeats would remove all \fake slurs, the result would
> be fine here.  The opposite case, where a repeat leads into only some
> alternatives, would be
> 
> \repeat { c d e f\single\slurDotted( \fake) }
> 
> which works less well.  One possible way around that would be to combine
> tweaks from start and end slur events, leading to
> 
> \repeat { c d e f( \fake\single\slurDotted) }
> 
> which is still not good enough for unfolding unless one starts slur-less
> alternatives with something like \fake( d\single\omit).  Which would not
> work for audio so for that case we probably really need an explicit slur
> killing command.
> 
> 
> Here is another example:
> 
> g f e d(
> \repeat { c d) e f }
> \alternatives {
>  { g a b( a \fake) }
>  { e d c( d \fake) }
>  { d c d e }
> }
> d c d c
> 
> The suggested automatism would turn this into
> 
> g f e d(
> \repeat { c d) e f }
> \alternatives {
>  { g a b( a }
>  { e d c( d }
>  { d c d e }
> }
> d c d c
> 
> which makes for a lot of visually unpaired opening parens in the source
> code.  Mind you: this is pretty much what I have asked for myself.  I
> just have my doubts that an automatism for some cases will not make it
> harder for other cases and will leave the music source in a less
> convincing state.
> 
> I have to admit that leaving _all_ automatism aside does not seem
> warranted: I can think of no case where inconsistent slur orientation
> across visual jumps would be desirable.
> 
>> It seems that I've *completely* misunderstood the syntax we were
>> talking about, so thanks for this detailed example.  However, I still
>> don't like \fake.  Looking at your syntax about, the corresponding TeX
>> name would be \phantom which I do now suggest.
> 
> Well, TeX uses \phantom for something which has dimensions but no visual
> appearance, whereas we would use it for something which has visual
> appearance (before unfolding) but no sound.
> 
> But TeX is separate enough from LilyPond that I actually like \phantom
> rather well for this purpose.
> 

Anything like phantom, fake and co doesn't sit right in English. Granted, the 
majority of LilyPond users are non-native speakers, so this probably doesn't 
make have the same impact. But, given that English is the language of lilypond, 
I think it's important to pay heed to the underlying sense of words. 'faux' in 
French, which means fake, would feel more suitable here, as it also means false 
and can apply to real things. But LilyPond is not in French.

Some other English ideas:

unhinged
unbridled
unanchored
loose
split
chopped
frayed

Cheers,
MS