|From:||Auto mailings of changes to Lily Issues|
|Subject:||[Lilypond-auto] [LilyIssues-auto] [testlilyissues:issues] Re: Ticket 4509 discussion|
|Date:||Mon, 30 Jan 2017 09:19:29 +0000|
I wish you would have been in for that discussion a few days earlier, but of course I know and understand the reasons why you're late to the party (and so does everybody else, I'm sure).
Well, I was busy with work that was a whole lot better paid while leaving me with rather little room for creative input on the end product. So I try adjusting to the old balance in LilyPond again... Or something.
Believe it or not, but my issue 1375 proposal is also about lyrics: I want to finish off the lyricsto in non-Bottom context thing properly, and I need a melisma-translator for that (so that it works equally well in midi and in layout) and that means I need to be able to follow a dynamic set of events (like slur-events and phrasing-slur-events) with spanner-id s over different contexts and that means that I need first class scheme translators (since C++ translators don't allow a variable set of events to listen for). So far, I am at the scheme engraver stage. So that's a very long shot and I have no idea whether it will indeed make it to 2.20 but most of the parts don't involve changes affecting users and their existing input a whole lot.
So one can take those as they come and see whether one crosses the threshold of being too disruptive to make it into the next stable release.
And this patch, as it stands, crosses that threshold. And I think maybe one could get it below that threshold without having to compromise on the goals it tries to achieve. Or at least split it into a part that can go in now and one that would want to mature in the next stable release cycle.
Basically, I see this issue as deciding when and where the 2.20 release branch needs to get split off. In the current form, I'd say it warrants half a year of developer releases for testing and refining its way of interfacing with the user. If it can mostly stick with the old way, that is unneeded since it's no major difference to previously. One can then still bring forward major interface change and have it mature under user feedback in the developer branch if it turns out that extending the old interface is leading to more long-term problems than one wants to carry around permanently.
[issues:#4509] Enhancement: automatically engrave lyric extenders
Created: Sat Jul 18, 2015 03:23 AM UTC by Anonymous
Last Updated: Sun Jan 29, 2017 11:39 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]|