Re: articulations on EventChord

[David Kastrup]

Janek Warchoł <address@hidden> writes:

> 2012/2/8 David Kastrup <address@hidden>:
>> LilyPond's typesetting does not act on music expressions and music
>> events.  It acts exclusively on stream events.  It is the act of
>> iterators to convert a music expression into a sequence of stream events
>> played in time order.
>>
>> The EventChord iterator is pretty simple: it just takes its "elements"
>> field when its time comes up, turns every member into a StreamEvent and
>> plays that through the typesetting process.  The parser currently
>> appends all postevents belonging to a chord at the end of "elements",
>> and thus they get played at the same point of time as the elements of
>> the chord.  dd to this design, you can add per-chord articulations or
>> postevents or even assemble chords with a common stem by using parallel
>> music providing additional notes/events: the typesetter does not see a
>> chord structure or postevents belonging to a chord, it just sees a
>> number of events occuring at the same point of time in a Voice context.
>>
>> So all one needs to do is let the EventChord iterator play articulations
>> after elements, and then adding to articulations in EventChord is
>> equivalent to adding them to elements (except in cases where the order
>> of events matters).
>
> Ah, so when a music function encounters an EventChord, it won't have
> to find its elements?  It will simply apply articulations to whatever
> it received, be it NoteEvent or EventChord, and don't worry about the
> details?  Seems perfect!
>
>> Feel free to add this information into CG when you find a nice place...
>
> Pushed as 1ba879b62380c43246fa74e7e2b80b6fa0fde754
> Many thanks!

Uh, you just copied and pasted everything including the speculative
parts and those not particular to event chords.  This is too
unstructured as content and not likely to be all that helpful.  I will
follow up with the code turning this into more of a reality eventually,
but since I don't really have the time to review the text properly at
this point of time, I would prefer it if it was pasted into an issue
report rather than the CG, to be dealt with with a proper review.  So I
am taking the liberty of removing that commit (while that is still
feasible) and would ask you to create an issue instead.

Thanks

-- 
David Kastrup