[Top][All Lists]

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

Re: lilypond ./ChangeLog ./VERSION Documentation/us...

From: Juergen Reuter
Subject: Re: lilypond ./ChangeLog ./VERSION Documentation/us...
Date: Thu, 18 Sep 2003 20:55:37 +0200 (CEST)

On Wed, 17 Sep 2003, Han-Wen Nienhuys wrote:

> Modified files:
>       .              : ChangeLog VERSION
>       Documentation/user: refman.itely
> ...
> Added files:
>       input/test     :

Thanks a lot for the shift-ambitus workaround!

Thanks also for implementing function kill-ambitus, but ...
For a new lilypond user without knowledge of lilypond internals, I think
it will be conceptually hard to understand why to transform the input by
some magic function in order to compensate something that is declared in
the paper section.  Is there a reason for prefering some magic
kill-ambitus function over my approach of defining a VoiceWithAmbitus and
StaffWithAmbitus context (which I think is conceptually easier to
understand)?  Furthermore, in a big score with many staves, you probably
want (if at all) to apply ambitus only to very few staves.  So, saying
"put ambitus here and there" (as in my approach similar to a positive
list) is much more appropriate than saying "do not put ambitus here and
there and over there and ... but only everywhere else" (as in your
approach of a negative list).

BTW, the plural of "ambitus" is "ambitus" (i.e. same spelling as singular,
but pronounced with a stressed "u").  If you want to englishify the
plural, "ambituses" may be a acceptable (although I am pretty sure, Latin
speakers will protest).  In any case, "ambiti" is definitely wrong, since
"ambitus" does not follow the o declination.


reply via email to

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