Re: Force Lilypond to preserve vertical order of TextScripts?

[Mason Hock]

On 02/18, Saul Tobin wrote:
> This is exactly the sort of situation I'm talking about. You're correct
> that the order doesn't change the meaning, just as changing the vertical
> order of instruments in the score doesn't change the scoring. But there is
> a strong convention of how to order different types of text instructions

Indeed, but as layout these decisions are not part of the musical information. 
When you include these instuctions in an include file containing the musical 
content of a player's part, you are only indicating that and when these 
instructions apply. If the order in which you enter the instructions were to 
affect their placement in the score, one of Lilypond's greatest strengths, the 
ability to separate layout from content, would be compromised. Any override to 
Lilypond's behavior that applies to the entire score is better off done 
globally, in a separate file from those containing content.

Mason

> (who plays first, then instrument changes, then technical instructions,
> then style of expression), similar to the conventions for score order. You
> don't want a "solo" indication buried in between three technical
> instructions, because it could easily get missed by sightreading players.
> Also, in a full score if several staves have the same three text
> instructions, it is more readable if they are in the same vertical order
> for each staff.
> 
> On Sun, Feb 18, 2018 at 5:51 PM, Mason Hock <address@hidden> wrote:
> 
> > > Indeed. However, the vertical order of expressions is part of content,
> > not
> > > a purely graphical layout issue.
> >
> > With the composer:content::editor:layout, vertical order of expressions
> > seems like layout for most cases that come to mind. A composer might decide
> > to have a violist switch to arco and ponticello simultaneously. The
> > vertical order of those expressions does not affect what the violist does.
> > I struggle to think of a situation in which the vertical order of
> > simultaneous instructions would change the meaning of those instructions.
> >