[Top][All Lists]

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

Re: [Lilypond-auto] Issue 2584 in lilypond: please make partcombine merg

From: lilypond
Subject: Re: [Lilypond-auto] Issue 2584 in lilypond: please make partcombine merge slurs
Date: Wed, 06 Jun 2012 06:08:47 +0000

        Labels: -Patch-review Patch-needs_work

Comment #18 on issue 2584 by address@hidden: please make partcombine merge slurs

Yes. I do think all that, though with a decided lack of passion.

It was convenient that { <c e>(( d) c( <d f>)) } has been interpreted as { <c e>( d) c( <d f>) } because that lets the part-combiner we have result in correctly-merged slurs.

I had no opinion on grouping brackets, but since they do nest, \partcombine is doing an insufficient job combining them. (\partcombine seems reasonably sophisticated about spanners--except when switching between Chords and Unisono--so a Scheme programmer might find it worthwhile to improve this area.)

I changed my mind a couple times whether this is an Enhancement or Regression. Maybe nobody else has used LilyPond for anything extensive enough that they depend on \partcombine merging slurs. I'd be content to see this re-re-categorized as Enhancement.

Issue 1967 is certainly not fixed. The example at the head of this issue, the example of \partcombine in the manual, and any part-combining with phrasing slurs, still produce the spurious warnings that were the complaint of issue 1967.

Needs work, I think, because I think David's review comment means that the patch would fail to give a warning for the unmatched ) in cases like
  \relative c' { a( \appoggiatura g8 b) a \appoggiatura g8 b) }

reply via email to

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