[Top][All Lists]

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

Re: 2.16 release candidate 3 imminent

From: Marc Hohl
Subject: Re: 2.16 release candidate 3 imminent
Date: Sun, 22 Jan 2012 10:41:28 +0100
User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux x86_64; en-US; rv: Gecko/20111109 Thunderbird/3.1.16

Am 21.01.2012 20:17, schrieb Carl Sorensen:
On 1/21/12 11:47 AM, "Marc Hohl"<address@hidden>  wrote:

I must admit that I am lost here and do not quite understand what's
going on,
but will there be any difference between

<   c\3 e\2 g\1>   and<   c e g>\3\2\1

once these changes are implemented?
The latter would not display anything anywhere.
I'm not sure you actually will find it great (although I think it is more

If we don't want to have string numbers show up in the music, but we need
them for the tabstaff, right now we can do

<c e g>\3\2\1

In the future,<c e g>\3\2\1 won't assign the string numbers to the
tabstaff.  (And in fact, I can't find this usage documented in the NR).
Yes, I stumbled upon it while we were discussing some other problems
concerning tablature, and I used this method to prevent the sting numbers
showing up.

\override StringNumber #'stencil = ##f

yielded in errors (but I think this has changed recently), and simply

\override StringNumber #'transparent = ##t

still influenced the spacing for obvious reasons.
Instead, as would be done regularly in lilypond, we would do

\once \override StringNumber #'stencil = ##f
<c\3 e\2 g\1>

This is consistent with how things are handled in lilypond, so I think we
ought to move in this direction.
As setting the stencil to false seems to work now, I agree with you that this is the
more lilypondish way to go.

Thanks for your explanations!



reply via email to

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