|From:||Auto mailings of changes to Lily Issues|
|Subject:||[Lilypond-auto] [LilyIssues-auto] [testlilyissues:issues] Ticket 4509 discussion|
|Date:||Sun, 29 Jan 2017 11:39:23 +0000|
The basic problem I have with this approach is that this patch is doing two things:
The first is to decide whether the user might want an extender when he did not explicitly ask for it. I am ok with that part. And I think there is input ("" or so) to actually override that decision.
The second is to decide that the user is no longer allowed to explicitly ask for an extender. That is a consequence of implementing the first half of the issue in a manner where it is impossible to find out whether the user asked explicitly for an extender because extenders are placed in the music _expression_ automatically.
I am not on board with that approach. Now it is comparatively easy for the extender engraver to look at the process_music stage whether or not there was an explicit extender and take different action depending on that. So there is no real necessity for stopping the music _expression_ from representing the actual input.
Now this would be a comparatively simple change to your work, except that those commits resulting from the decision not to allow/heed explicit extenders to be input would not be present.
I would therefore suggest that you push your current work (assuming that it is structured into several commits) to a branch origin/heads/dev/issue4509 or so so that I am able to propose changes which will allow automatic insertion of extenders without messing with manually inserted extenders (apart from the changes in their appearance implied by this patch, but not whether they appear at all).
This would also make it comparatively easy to use an override for regaining the previous behavior, namely only putting in explicitly requested extenders. This would be beneficial for people wanting to write an Urtext edition having extenders if and only if the original showed them.
[issues:#4509] Enhancement: automatically engrave lyric extenders
Created: Sat Jul 18, 2015 03:23 AM UTC by Anonymous
Last Updated: Sat Jan 28, 2017 08:31 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]|