Re: \mark and slur

[Thomas Morley]

Hi David,

I know played a little with your fix issue 5181

On current topic:

2017-09-14 15:57 GMT+02:00 David Kastrup <address@hidden>:
> David Kastrup <address@hidden> writes:

> Note: another component that may possibly be included in the warning
> message for this input would be "SlurEvent".  Would
>
>>>>> sll.ly:4:13: warning: Adding <> for attaching loose SlurEvent
>>>>>    \mark "X"
>>>>>              (c4) c c c
>
> be any better?

I'd go for post-event(s)
Plural, because there may be more than one. See example below

> Or not mention the expedient of <> at all (might make it
> harder for the user to figure out a workaround for his situation)?

I'd likely drop mentioning <>


Other thoughts.

I tested:

{
  -1
  --
  -\markup "foo"
  -\tweak outside-staff-priority #200
  \upbow
  -\tweak outside-staff-priority #-200
  \fermata
  d'
}

Which throws the warning, but works nicely otherwise.


But
{ -\3 -\rightHandFinger #2 d'4 }
issues the warning, the image doesn't contain the post-events, though.
Not a problem of your patch, because a spelled out version fails as well:
{ <>\3\rightHandFinger #2 d'4 }

I guess it's because the post-events are attached to an event-chord
and not a note-event, since
{ d'4\3\rightHandFinger #2 }
works as expected. But I'm guessing...

Nevertheless, the current warning feels like lily would fix the
problem, but doesn't.


Your patch-descriptions reads (among other stuff):

"Parser: Add reverse_music_list function

This function does not just reverse a music list but also integrates
post events into the respective preceding expressions. If that is not
possible, a warning is printed and they are either dropped or attached
to an empty chord (depending on a call parameter).
"

So I'd rather expect a warning if stuff is dropped.


Cheers,
  Harm