[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
RE: \mark and slur
From: |
Mark Stephen Mrotek |
Subject: |
RE: \mark and slur |
Date: |
Thu, 14 Sep 2017 15:31:32 -0700 |
David,
Understood. Thank you.
Mark
-----Original Message-----
From: David Kastrup [mailto:address@hidden
Sent: Thursday, September 14, 2017 1:52 PM
To: Mark Stephen Mrotek <address@hidden>
Cc: 'Gianmaria Lari' <address@hidden>; 'lilypond-user'
<address@hidden>
Subject: Re: \mark and slur
"Mark Stephen Mrotek" <address@hidden> writes:
> David Kastrup [mailto:address@hidden wrote:
>> <address@hidden>
>> Subject: Re: \mark and slur
>>
>> "Mark Stephen Mrotek" <address@hidden> writes:
>>
>>> Try
>>>
>>> c4 c c d
>>>
>>> (c4^\markup {"X"}) c c c
>>
>> Shrug. If you insist on that kind of organization you can try
>>
>> \version "2.19.65"
>>
>> \fixed c' {
>>
>> c4 c c d
>>
>> (\mark "X" c4) c c c
>>
>> }
>>
>> But it's really a delusion you are getting and becomes rather
>> strained once you go, like
>>
>> \version "2.19.65"
>>
>> \fixed c' {
>>
> c4 c c d
>
> (|\mark "X" c4) c c c
>
> }
>
> What I presented was a suggestion that "worked."
> In no way, shape, or form was it an "insistence."
It was meant as "if _one_ insists on that kind of organization" (rather than
_you_) and referred to you trying to give a version matching the original
spirit which constituted the frame of reference or insistence.
Basically, I saw you as trying to accommodate an assumed insistence rather
than being insistant yourself. I just don't think that this manner of
writing warrants accommodation: there just are too many cases where it will
get strained to the point of falling apart.
--
David Kastrup
- Re: Regtest for issue 5181 (was: \mark and slur), (continued)
Re: \mark and slur, Gianmaria Lari, 2017/09/14
Re: \mark and slur, Phil Holmes, 2017/09/14
RE: \mark and slur, Mark Stephen Mrotek, 2017/09/14
Re: \mark and slur, Flaming Hakama by Elaine, 2017/09/14