Re: Slurs, phrasing slurs and fingering

[David Kastrup]

David Kastrup <address@hidden> writes:

> Noeck <address@hidden> writes:
>
>> Why has that been inverted? To me, \shape PhrasingSlur #… is easier to
>> read than \shape #… PhrasingSlur. Could someone briefly explain the
>> reason for that?
>
> The old syntax was
>
>       \shape PhrasingSlur #'((0 . 1) (0 . 1.8) (0 . 1.8) (0 . 0))
>       cis8 \(
>
> The new one supports either
>
>       \shape #'((0 . 1) (0 . 1.8) (0 . 1.8) (0 . 0))  PhrasingSlur
>       cis8 \(
>
> or
>
>       cis8 -\shape #'((0 . 1) (0 . 1.8) (0 . 1.8) (0 . 0)) \(
>
> This saves you from having to remember that \( is a PhrasingSlur, and it
> makes it possible to change the shape of a double slur
>
>       cis8 ^\( _\)
>
> by shaping each of the constituting slurs independently with its own
> call of \shape.

This is not actually a full explanation since the tweak-like usage would
not strictly have necessitated switching the argument order.  It turns
out, however, that if you stack more than one tweak-like command on the
same music expression, not having the music expression for each tweak
come last makes for a completely awful syntax, like

cis8 -\shape \tweak #'color #red \( #'((0 . 1) (0 . 1.8) (0 . 1.8) (0. 0)) 

rather than

cis8 -\shape #'((0 . 1) (0 . 1.8) (0 . 1.8) (0. 0)) \tweak #'color #red \(

-- 
David Kastrup