|From:||Auto mailings of changes to Lily Issues|
|Subject:||[Lilypond-auto] [LilyIssues-auto] [testlilyissues:issues] Re: Ticket 4509 discussion|
|Date:||Fri, 13 Jan 2017 13:14:27 +0000|
Alexander Kobel wrote Friday, January 13, 2017 11:14 AM
__should (and will) be removed by convert-ly, so this situation should not occur unless the user did not follow the convert-ly recommendation. I agree with Dan that this should not be a concern for us.
@Dan: As said above, backward compatibility of the Lilypond engine (use old input file with new Lily) can and will be asserted by convert-ly, of course; I was refering to backward compatibility of the input (use [parts of] new input file with old/stable Lily). I'm not sure if average Jane is happy when all her manual extenders are deleted by convert-ly, and at some point she wants or needs to use, say, 2.18, because why not. I know that's what backups are for; but we had very few syntax changes in a long while that make code without any tweaks incompatible, and lyrics are among the most innocent part of a Lily file that I can imagine.
I agree. The whole ethos of LilyPond is to attempt to produce the best possible output even when there are errors in the input. Suddenly releasing a version that gives a syntax error for something that has been valid for years when it would be possible to generate a perfect score from the input violates that principle. I don't like that. We need to treat users, especially new users and occasional users, as gently as possible. That's what Lily has always done and she should continue to do so.
OTOH, I totally agree that there is no good reason why a now meaningless token should receive special handling indefinitely. The existence of extender event is now merely an implementation detail and hardly of any concern to the user.
Other projects typically use a deprecation period in such cases. Is that a good compromise?
E.g., on encountering
__, the parser could spit out a warning like "Ignoring
__... (deprecated; extenders are automatically generated since Lilypond v2.x.y)" and only throw an error in some future version (e.g., starting from 2.21.1 or 3.1.1, whatever comes first...).
I would strongly support this. Yes, it is a good compromise.
[issues:#4509] Enhancement: automatically engrave lyric extenders
Created: Sat Jul 18, 2015 03:23 AM UTC by Anonymous
Last Updated: Fri Jan 13, 2017 11:14 AM UTC
Owner: Alexander Kobel
Originally created by: *anonymous
Originally created by: address@hidden
Actually, this is a content vs. presentation issue. The current approach has lyric extenders ‘hardcoded’ within the lyricmode input, whereas often it depends on layout whether I want an extender printed or not:
– In tight horizontal spacing, we might not need an extender, but when spacing is stretched, it might become necessary. This can come through different (page/line) breaking, parallel contexts present only in some editions (part vs. score), Completion_heads_engraver (mensural without barlines/transcription with barlines).
– Long syllables might not need an extender, where short syllables do.
– Often, all voices share the same text, but have extenders in different places. If extenders need not be given explicitly, the lyricmode input code can be reused much easier.
After all, the extenders don’t add any additional meaning, but only serve to improve legibility in such cases where they do.
This would require:
– Recognising the end of a word by absence of a hyphen.
– Comparing printed length of the melisma notes vs. the syllable, likely after line breaking. After all, extenders will never influence horizontal spacing. They might, however, affect vertical spacing. (unless we chose to omit (or shift) the extender in that case?)
– Personally, I think very short extenders shouldn’t be printed. There should be some kind of threshold.
It’s also one of the usecases where a proper representation of a ‘lyric word’ would be helpful, along with issue 2458.
Version 2.12 had this listed as a Known issue.
Sent from sourceforge.net because address@hidden is subscribed to https://sourceforge.net/p/testlilyissues/issues/
To unsubscribe from further messages, a project admin can change settings at https://sourceforge.net/p/testlilyissues/admin/issues/options. Or, if this is a mailing list, you can unsubscribe from the mailing list.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Developer Access Program for Intel Xeon Phi Processors Access to Intel Xeon Phi processor-based developer platforms. With one year of Intel Parallel Studio XE. Training and support from Colfax. Order your platform today. http://sdm.link/xeonphi
_______________________________________________ Testlilyissues-auto mailing list address@hidden https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/testlilyissues-auto
|[Prev in Thread]||Current Thread||[Next in Thread]|