Re: staccato dots and slurs in second voice

[David Nalesnik]

On Sun, Jan 25, 2015 at 8:24 PM, David Nalesnik <address@hidden> wrote:

Hi Jay,

On Sun, Jan 25, 2015 at 7:03 PM, Jay Anderson <address@hidden> wrote:

On Sun, Jan 25, 2015 at 5:14 PM, David Nalesnik
<address@hidden> wrote:
> It's definitely possible!  Using a pointer to a ScriptColumn, the X-offset
> callback for Script can be modified to (1) center staccatos over the stem if
> no other articulations are present; (2) center them over the note head if
> multiple articulations are present.  I'll go over this some more, and if all
> goes well I should have a patch up for discussion.

From another recent message:
http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/lilypond-user/2015-01/msg00509.html.
Is toward-stem-shift not the right thing to change instead of
X-offset?

That's effectively what I'm doing.  I'm changing the X-offset callback because it's only there that the property toward-stem-shift is read (see scm/output-lib.scm).  The trick is allowing two different concurrent values for toward-stem-shift: 1.0 for when the staccato is alone, 0.0 when other articulations are present (like a portato)   In my experiment, I simply did what the engraver does regarding toward-stem-shift.

Maybe there ought to be another property, held by staccato and staccatissimo--something that locks staccatos in tandem with any other articulations present.  By default, the staccato and anything else would be linked.  Who knows, someone might want to fool with toward-stem-shift of the staccato in a column, and I'm not wild about the sleight-of-hand I described above.

 

Hmmm...what about changing toward-stem-shift to a number-pair instead of a number? Then we would have ( [shift-when-alone] . [shift-when-in-a-group] ).  The default for staccato and staccatissimo and stopped and whatever would be '(1.0 . 0.0).  This would avoid adding yet another property, and would make shifting articulations around in relation to each other transparent.

--David