Re: Symmetric slur input

[David Kastrup]

Janek Warchoł <address@hidden> writes:

> 2013/8/7 David Kastrup <address@hidden>
>
>> Han-Wen Nienhuys <address@hidden> writes:
>>
>> > On Sun, Aug 4, 2013 at 9:18 AM, David Kastrup <address@hidden> wrote:
>> >>>>>> I don't think that distributing ( and ) between standalone event and
>> >>>>>> post-event respectively is a concept that will carry the day
>> >>>>>> sufficiently to be given a chance at a comeback.  It would make
>> >>>>>> (c (d) e)
>> >>>>>> visually confusing.  While neither the current
>> >>>>>> c( d)( e)
>> >>>>>> nor the standalone event version
>> >>>>>> (c )(d )e
>> >>>>>> will win a price for prettiness, they both beat (c (d) e) in
>> conveying
>> >>>>>> meaning rather than looking pleasing.
>> >>>>
>> >>>> What about considering ( as a post-event and ) as a standalone event ?
>> >>>>      c( )d( )e  is symmetric and very clear.
>> >
>> > c()d()e is a pain in the ass, and we got rid of it in the 1.8-2.0
>> > syntax change. It is a pain in the ass, because when copying music,
>> > you have to remember to put some adornments (ie. the ')' ) before the
>> > note, while most go after the note.
>>
>> Example?  While I am apparently preparing the ground for historic
>> reenactments, we'll want to convey some of the original horror, and I
>> don't get it yet.
>>
>
> Do i understand correctly that
> http://code.google.com/p/lilypond/issues/detail?id=3487 would change slur
> syntax from c( d)( e) to c()d()e ?
> I have to say that i don't like c()d()e.

No, you don't understand correctly.  It just makes possible redefining
things like ( and ) so that you _could_ write a document in that style
if you wanted to.  I think it should be obvious from the issue
description and review.

I actually changed the regression test to something less scary, namely
redefining ( and ) as \melisma and \melismaEnd (not possible previously
because they behave like articulations to the user but aren't to
LilyPond).

-- 
David Kastrup