Re: [PATCH] Re: syntax change for \cresc

[Xavier Scheuer]

Hi Reinhold, Graham,

2010/4/23 Graham Percival <address@hidden>:

> As far as I'm concerned, yes.  Maybe wait 24 hours in case anybody
> objects?  But then go ahead.
>
> For anybody skimming this: the patch includes a convert-ly rule
> which changes any current \cresc into \deprecatedcresc, so this
> change doesn't require any manual attention to ly files.

Sorry I missed the 24 hours objection deadline...

I followed the interesting (and long) discussion about proposals for
a new text (de)cresc syntax, because I was interested in it (actually
I really don't like the current syntax).
But then there was a quite long "calm period" and I understood that you
would be waiting for the GLISS...

I'm not a programmer but if I understand well Reinhold's proposal this
new \cresc command would be to text cresc *with spanners*, right?
(the equivalent to the current \crescTextCresc c2\< )

I would have preferred to have cresc *without spanners* as default
behaviour for the \cresc (and so \dim) command.

There are a few reason of this, the main one being that it's like that
I'm already redefining the \cresc command for now  ;D
  cresc = #(make-dynamic-script
    (markup #:line (#:left-align
                    #:normal-text
                    #:italic "cresc.")))

But I see other reasons why \cresc should be used for the one without
extender line:

  – cresc without spanners is far most common in the scores I have
   (and in the ones I write);
  – the behaviour of the previous \cresc command was without spanners;
  – from what I remember from the previous discussion, it was said that
    \cresc , \dim , \decresc , ... would produce text (de)cresc without
    spanners by default.  And for that with spanners a syntax like
    \<"cresc. poco a poco" would be used.
    But I think something like \crescTextSpan "cresc. poco a poco"
    should be fine too as a syntax (and for custom cresc text witout
    span we could use \crescText "cresc. blabla" for example).

In every case the command should be inserted *after* the note, as
everybody agreed I think (and as Reihold's proposal).
I hate these commands that requires to place something before the note!

Thanks for your work and sorry for the "bit-late" awakening.

Cheers,
Xavier

PS: Cc: to Frédéric Bron and lilypond-user.

--
Xavier Scheuer <address@hidden>