[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: \mark and slur
From: |
David Kastrup |
Subject: |
Re: \mark and slur |
Date: |
Thu, 14 Sep 2017 22:51:50 +0200 |
User-agent: |
Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/26.0.50 (gnu/linux) |
"Mark Stephen Mrotek" <address@hidden> writes:
> David Kastrup [mailto:address@hidden wrote:
>> <address@hidden>
>> Subject: Re: \mark and slur
>>
>> "Mark Stephen Mrotek" <address@hidden> writes:
>>
>>> Try
>>>
>>> c4 c c d
>>>
>>> (c4^\markup {"X"}) c c c
>>
>> Shrug. If you insist on that kind of organization you can try
>>
>> \version "2.19.65"
>>
>> \fixed c' {
>>
>> c4 c c d
>>
>> (\mark "X" c4) c c c
>>
>> }
>>
>> But it's really a delusion you are getting and becomes rather strained once
>> you go, like
>>
>> \version "2.19.65"
>>
>> \fixed c' {
>>
> c4 c c d
>
> (|\mark "X" c4) c c c
>
> }
>
> What I presented was a suggestion that "worked."
> In no way, shape, or form was it an "insistence."
It was meant as "if _one_ insists on that kind of organization" (rather
than _you_) and referred to you trying to give a version matching the
original spirit which constituted the frame of reference or insistence.
Basically, I saw you as trying to accommodate an assumed insistence
rather than being insistant yourself. I just don't think that this
manner of writing warrants accommodation: there just are too many cases
where it will get strained to the point of falling apart.
--
David Kastrup
- Re: Regtest for issue 5181, (continued)
- Re: Regtest for issue 5181, David Kastrup, 2017/09/23
- Re: Regtest for issue 5181 (was: \mark and slur), Thomas Morley, 2017/09/23
- Re: \mark and slur, David Kastrup, 2017/09/16
- How near is 2.20? [was: Re: \mark and slur], Malte Meyn, 2017/09/14
- Re: How near is 2.20? [was: Re: \mark and slur], David Kastrup, 2017/09/14
Re: \mark and slur, Gianmaria Lari, 2017/09/14
Re: \mark and slur, Phil Holmes, 2017/09/14
RE: \mark and slur, Mark Stephen Mrotek, 2017/09/14
Re: \mark and slur, Flaming Hakama by Elaine, 2017/09/14