|From:||Auto mailings of changes to Lily Issues|
|Subject:||[Lilypond-auto] [LilyIssues-auto] [testlilyissues:issues] Re: Ticket 4509 discussion|
|Date:||Thu, 26 Jan 2017 15:08:48 +0000|
Disclaimer: not at a Lily-equipped PC at the moment.
Isn't that talking about apples and oranges? IIUC, the tweak as written in the snippet does not work with the patch because
__ is not translated to an ExtenderEvent anymore, but to
SCM_UNSPECIFIED. That's expected, since we purged
__ from the syntax. If an
\once \override LyricExtender.stencil = ... were used instead of
\tweak, everything should be fine, right?
So, yes, the patchset introduces an error for that snippet, but it should be possible to work around with a different way to "install" the new stencil.
I'm not sure if it's a good idea to keep
__ around just to facilitate the tweak notation. After all, there's only going to be one extender active - in chords, we need tweak to access individual elements, but this is not the case for extenders...
Also, this snippet does not really care whether ExtenderEvents exist - it changes the LyricExtender stencil, and only uses the ExtenderEvent creation routine to install the tweak (and save the user from typing an additional
__ which will no longer be needed). So I do not really see how this relates to the original point: keep or purge ExtenderEvents.
That being said, I'm nevertheless surprised how
\displayLilyMusic manages to emit an
[issues:#4509] Enhancement: automatically engrave lyric extenders
Created: Sat Jul 18, 2015 03:23 AM UTC by Anonymous
Last Updated: Thu Jan 26, 2017 07:38 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.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Check out the vibrant tech community on one of the world's most engaging tech sites, SlashDot.org! http://sdm.link/slashdot
_______________________________________________ Testlilyissues-auto mailing list address@hidden https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/testlilyissues-auto
|[Prev in Thread]||Current Thread||[Next in Thread]|