Re: Duration lines and dots

[Thomas Morley]

Am Mo., 10. Okt. 2022 um 00:27 Uhr schrieb Jean Abou Samra <jean@abou-samra.fr>:
>
> Harm,
>
> On the lilypond-user-fr list, there is a user wondering about this:
>
> \version "2.23.14"
>
> \new Voice \with {
>    \consists Duration_line_engraver
>    % \override DurationLine.bound-details.left.start-at-dot = ##t
> }
> { d'4.\- 8 }
>
>
> As you can see, the duration line crosses the dot. It does
> not if the override is outcommented. That override is explicitly
> catered for in the duration line code though, making me think
> that you didn't enable it by default on purpose. What is
> your opinion about this? What should the default be? Moving
> the dot up to avoid the duration line?
>
> Jean
>

The main porpose for duration lines is graphical notation as shown in
NR 2.8.3 Graphical notation.
I.e. no stems, flags, beams, dots and the NoteHead is always a filled
black one (duration-log = 2).
The duration line always starts inside the note head.
Though the user should be able to use something like d'4. (and omit
the dots), although it would be prferable to use d'4*3/2.
Thus the default for left.start-at-dot is #f.

Nevertheless, there are cases where this fundamental approach is mixed
with elements of traditional notations.
Then it's up to the user to specify what he wants: beams, flags, dots,
stems, note heads...
I tried to cater for these cases as well.

So far my thought while implementing DurationLine.
Though, I'm open for other thoughts.

Cheers,
  Harm