bug-lilypond
[Top][All Lists]
Advanced

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

## Re: Spacing bug

 From: Erik Sandberg Subject: Re: Spacing bug Date: Thu, 6 Oct 2005 09:27:14 +0200 User-agent: KMail/1.8.1

On Wednesday 05 October 2005 23.55, Wiz Aus wrote:
> >From: Erik Sandberg <address@hidden>
> >Reply-To: address@hidden
> >To: address@hidden
> >CC: Mats Bengtsson <address@hidden>, Wiz Aus
> ><address@hidden>
> >Subject: Re: Spacing bug
> >Date: Wed, 5 Oct 2005 21:46:33 +0200
> >
> >On Wednesday 05 October 2005 10.23, Mats Bengtsson wrote:
> > > Still, I agree with you that especially the spacing between the last
> > > note of each measure the following bar line is too tight. As far as I
> > > can see, there is no way to specify a minimum distance for that
> > > setting, in contrast to all other spacings, for example between the
> > > time signature and the first note.
> >
> >If the spacing gets too tight and you want it to occupy more rows, you can
> >also play with the
> >\override Score.SeparationItem #'padding
> >setting, see 10.1.8 in the 2.7 manual.
>
> Ok, there's supposed to be a
>
> r \bar "|."
>
> at the end.  Either way,there seems no question to me that the default
> spacing
> here is unusuable. The passage looks absolutely fine split out on to two
> lines,
> so I'm wondering why lilypond thinks it would be better on just one.
>
> > > > Actually one other thing - why is the duration number necessary when
> > > > using a dot?
> > > > I would expect to be able to type "c,. d16 e8 f g. a16" for the 5th
> >
> >bar
> >
> > > > here, but it doesn't work.
> > > > The documentation doesn't suggest that the duration number is
> >
> >required,
> >
> > > > but all the examples include it.
> > >
> > > I don't know any specific reason, but I don't think it hurts, the input
> > > syntax can be confusing enough anyway. Consider for example what
> > > c4 c. c.
> > > would mean if the duration numbers weren't necessary (it would be the
> > > same as
> > > c4 c4. c4..
> > > which probably would surprise many).
>
> No, because I only expect the number to carry through, not the dot.
>
> c4 c. c. would mean c4 c4. c4.
>
> >Also, the notation wouldn't gain much: It seldom happens regularly that a
> >quarter is followed by a dotted quarter
>
> Um...
>
> g4 g4. e8 e4 g g4. d8 d4 e f g a b g2.
>
> (Even allowing that neither of us are American, that tune should at least
> ring a faint bell!)
>
> I wouldn't have thought it at all unusual for any duration note to be
> followed by a dotted version of itself.

It's not terribly usual either. In the example above, it's just as common with
a note followed by a note twice as slow (e8 e4), or a note followed by a
three times as fast note (g4. e8). So if we really need a special shorthand
for multiplying the previous duration with 3/2, why wouldn't we also need one
to multiply with 1/3 or 2?

> >IMHO there's little point in inventing a special syntax for it.
>
> But that's my point - to me it's special syntax that you *do* need to
> repeat the duration number - it seems to be only case where it's necessary.

It's not about duration numbers, it's about durations: 8. is one duration, 8
is a different duration. So if you switch from 8 to 8., you need to re-type
the entire duration.

--
Erik



reply via email to

 [Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]