Re: 2.16 release candidate 3 imminent

[David Kastrup]

"address@hidden" <address@hidden> writes:

> On Jan 21, 2012, at 7:12 PM, David Kastrup wrote:
>
>> If you wrote note^postevent previously, the postevent ended up in
>> "articulations" of the NoteEvent when written inside of a chord, or as
>> an EventChord companion when not written in a chord.  Now it ends up in
>> "articulations", period.
>> 
>
> I think it this is good - this is what will help scrap the fingering
> and script engraver.  It seems like this is a separate problem from
> wrapping notes in event chords or not: if all articulations are in an
> articulations list, then they can all go to the new fingering
> engraver.

They won't be in an articulation list if they are on a chord.  Then they
are separate events inside of EventChord.  It is conceivable that we let
EventChord _also_ take articulations as a property.  It is not all that
clear to me who will be responsible for interpreting them, but it would
likely not be hard to just let the event chord iterator broadcast them
without thinking.  This would, however, be a more fundamental change.
The current syntax changes don't create music events that could not
previously also occur (just not everywhere).  EvantChord+articulation
would be new.

>>> My question is this: what is the basic advantage of having rhythmic
>>> events not wrapped in event chords?  I understand that it can be used
>>> to wedge a distinction between <c> and c, but how is this distinction
>>> useful?
>> 
>> <URL:http://code.google.com/p/lilypond/issues/detail?id=1110#c26>
>> 
>
> Why couldn't this be solved on the iterator level?

There was no distinction between c and <c> at the iterator level
anymore.  Either case you had an EventChord around it.

>> The problem that I have been tackling is more: is there an inherent
>> difference between c-. and c-. and, if not so, why the heck do they
>> look utterly different in the music expression depending on whether
>> inside of < > or outside?
>> 
>
> I absolutely agree that everything should be in an articulations list,
> but I think this can be done while preserving event chords.  It just
> means that EventChords will no longer contain articulation events and
> that all articulation events will be pulled out of NoteEvents or
> RestEvents and broadcast at the iterator level.

There is such a thing as a chord articulation.

> I'm not at all saying that this is a bad proposal, but rather that as
> I'm learning more about how iterators do their thing, I'm realizing
> that all articulations can be in a list attached to a rhythmic event
> and that event chords never need to carry articulations.

What do you do with <c e g>\p then?

-- 
David Kastrup