[Top][All Lists]

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

Re: Some engraver brainstorming

From: David Kastrup
Subject: Re: Some engraver brainstorming
Date: Sat, 08 May 2010 14:37:16 +0200
User-agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/24.0.50 (gnu/linux)

Werner LEMBERG <address@hidden> writes:

>> So how about the ultimate tweak: using a separate engraver?  We
>> can't have overlapping slurs with a single engraver, for example.
>> But if we write something like
>>   <c( address@hidden( g> <address@hidden) f)>
>> and use @1 with the scope of a tweak, and let it use the engraver of
>> subvoice 1 (a subvoice having its own engraver copies that get to
>> handle basic events just from its own subvoice), then it becomes
>> possible to use parallel slurs in one voice.
> I like this.  Up to now noone had ever such an idea, and your
> suggestion sounds very promising.  If you say that it is feasible to
> implement, the better!  BTW, are there any possible disadvantages
> besides adding a new operator like `@' and the foreseeable MusicXML
> difficulties?

It will not necessarily be trivial to decide (and for the user to figure
out) just what responsibilities get moved and what not in order to have
reasonably consistent behavior as well as good usefulness (when compared
with wholly separate voices).

It is also not necessarily the best solution for every case: while one
could use it as a stop-gap measure for glissandi, multi-note glissandi
should be available without reverting to such trickery.  And without the
need to let the code grow much more complex...

In a similar vein, it might be expedient to use as a stop-gap measure
for other incomplete features, while ultimately other solutions might
make for a cleaner and more logical music source.

David Kastrup

reply via email to

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