[Top][All Lists]

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

Re: PATCH: Improved tablature support

From: Marc Hohl
Subject: Re: PATCH: Improved tablature support
Date: Fri, 17 Jul 2009 10:13:07 +0200
User-agent: Thunderbird (X11/20090608)

Carl Sorensen schrieb:

On 7/16/09 9:56 AM, "Carl Sorensen" <address@hidden> wrote:

Marc Hohl has completed a patch for improved tablature support.  It is
available for review at:

Please review and comment.



Here are some comments.

1) All regression tests should be \version "2.13.4" -- I'll fix that.
Thank you!
2) Your regression test for the modernTab clef:
  Doc header should say "four- to seven- stringed instruments", which means
instruments having four to seven strings.  "four to seven stringed
instruments" means four to seven instruments having strings.  Isn't english
Ah, I see. Yeah, english *is* fun, but sometimes I just stumble through
half-finished sentences in despite search of a missing word, but at least,
the work on lilypond seems to improve my english a bit.
  You should demonstrate in the regtest that it works for four strings and
seven strings, and that it works with various staff sizes.  You may want two
different regtests -- one that shows variations in string numbers and one
that shows variation in sizes.
Ok, I will provide additional regtests.
3) Is it necessary (or desirable) to have both \deadNote and
\deadNoteOn..\deadNoteOff?  Unless a whole piece is to be written in
DeadNotes, I can't imagine that it's better to write

\deadNoteOn e e deadNoteOff


\deadNotes{e e}.

If there's no value to the On..Off pairs, then it's probably best to
eliminate them.  But if there is value, we can keep them.  And I'm not the
judge of value.  I'm just asking the question.
Hm, I introduced the ..On/..Off pairs first, because this syntax seemed to be "lilypondish" - and easier to read, especially if there are long passages played
palm mute- or dead note-style. The latter construct looks more like a
programming language to me (yes, in fact it is a programming language, but
as there are many users not familiar with computer programming, we should
avoid this in general - but this is rather philosophical here).

On the other hand, for a single dead note
\deadNoteOn e \DeadNoteOff
is way too complicated, and furthermore
< c \deadNoteOn e \deadNoteOff g > won't work, so there is need for the
second syntax.

4) Formatting nit on scm/tablature.scm

line 125-128: I think it would look better to put all the arguments to
ly:stencil-combine-at-edge on line 124.

line 129-131:  I would like it better to have the last three arguments to
the first ly:stencil-combine-at-edge call on line 125, nested to the same
depth as the inner (ly:stencil-combine-at-edge call.

I don't want to blame others here, but this piece of code was 1:1 copied from Neil's mail. Shall I reformat it and send a new patch, or are there other possibilities to correct it?
Other than that, things look good.

Oh, BTW, Thomas Morgan is currently working on a new Parenthesize markup
command that will be better than the current parentheses; it will draw the
parentheses as slurs.  This may be something you want to use in the future.
Great! This opens the possibilitiy of drawing parentheses around chords, isn't it?

Thank you.


reply via email to

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