[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: melismaBusyProperties: scheme syntax vs. lily syntax
From: |
Thomas Morley |
Subject: |
Re: melismaBusyProperties: scheme syntax vs. lily syntax |
Date: |
Mon, 16 Jul 2018 11:01:05 +0200 |
2018-07-16 3:14 GMT+02:00 Carl Sorensen <address@hidden>:
>
>
> On 7/15/18, 6:53 PM, "Simon Albrecht" <address@hidden> wrote:
>
> On 16.07.2018 02:51, Carl Sorensen wrote:
> >
> > On 7/15/18, 3:29 PM, "lilypond-devel on behalf of David Kastrup"
> <address@hidden on behalf of address@hidden> wrote:
> >
> > Simon Albrecht <address@hidden> writes:
> >
> > > Hello everybody,
> > >
> > > I just noticed that it’s possible to use the LilyPond symbol
> list/key
> > > list syntax when setting melismaBusyProperties. However, the doc
> > > string reads
> > >
> > > "A list of properties (symbols) to determine whether a melisma
> is playing.
> > > Setting this property will influence how lyrics are aligned to
> notes.
> > > For example, if set to @code{'(melismaBusy beamMelismaBusy)},
> > > only manual melismata and manual beams are considered.
> > > Possible values include @code{melismaBusy},
> @code{slurMelismaBusy},
> > > @code{tieMelismaBusy}, and @code{beamMelismaBusy}."
> > >
> > > Would we want to change the first code example to
> > >
> > > @code{melismaBusy,beamMelismaBusy}
> > >
> > > or otherwise suggest the new syntax?
> >
> > Feel free to do so, I think. It's not really a change of syntax
> > specifically for melismaBusyProperties so I'd likely not mess with
> the
> > descriptions when they talk about "symbol list" or whatever.
> Instead
> > I'd just change the examples.
> >
> > I don't think we should change the doc string. IIUC, the property
> actually is a list. But we can set it using LilyPond syntax, as well as
> Scheme syntax. So I agree that it should shown in the examples, but the
> docstring should not be changed.
>
> What examples do you mean?
>
> Apparently, there are none. So I guess that if we want to move in this
> direction, we should add a docs tagged snippet that shows the property being
> set.
>
> Or alternatively, we should just leave it as is.
>
> Thanks,
>
> Carl
Hi all,
let me hook in here, refering to the more generic topic of this
thread: "scheme syntax vs. lily syntax"
Meanwhile we have several possibilities where naked scheme-syntax can
be done by more readable and (hopefully) more userfriendly ly-syntax.
Things like dotted/comma-separated lists, etc.
Several macros were introduced as well, `make-engraver` for example.
All very nice. Most of the time.
Though, I remember at least one instance where `make-engraver' failed
for a very special use-case.
Then I tried the scheme-list-syntax for engravers and found it worked.
Asking on the list, David K confirmed a certain limitation in
`make-engraver`.
Meanwhile we had eliminated the scheme-list-syntax for engravers from
our source completely, without having stored some examples of old
list-syntax-engravers I would have been lost.
Probably other problems with ly-syntax (replacing scheme-syntax) and
macros may occur, _if_ they are attempted to be used for something
they were not designed for.
So I think we should explain/demonstrate somewhere what these
syntax/macros are supposed to do/replace in order to give people
wanting to change/extent/further develop them some more basic hints.
As an example:
foo = 2,4,8
\void \displayScheme \foo
=> (list 2 4 8)
Would the Extanding Manual be an appropriate place?
Cheers,
Harm
- melismaBusyProperties: scheme syntax vs. lily syntax, Simon Albrecht, 2018/07/15
- Re: melismaBusyProperties: scheme syntax vs. lily syntax, David Kastrup, 2018/07/15
- Re: melismaBusyProperties: scheme syntax vs. lily syntax, Carl Sorensen, 2018/07/15
- Re: melismaBusyProperties: scheme syntax vs. lily syntax, Simon Albrecht, 2018/07/15
- Re: melismaBusyProperties: scheme syntax vs. lily syntax, Carl Sorensen, 2018/07/15
- Re: melismaBusyProperties: scheme syntax vs. lily syntax,
Thomas Morley <=
- Re: melismaBusyProperties: scheme syntax vs. lily syntax, David Kastrup, 2018/07/16
- Re: melismaBusyProperties: scheme syntax vs. lily syntax, Thomas Morley, 2018/07/16
- Re: melismaBusyProperties: scheme syntax vs. lily syntax, David Kastrup, 2018/07/16