[Top][All Lists]

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

Re: repeating bar numbers and rehearsal marks in frenched score

From: James Lowe
Subject: Re: repeating bar numbers and rehearsal marks in frenched score
Date: Sat, 30 Jul 2016 11:06:25 +0100
User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:45.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/45.2.0


On 29/07/16 18:09, Mark Knoop wrote:
At 16:41 on 29 Jul 2016, David Kastrup wrote:
I remember that the decision to sort the remove-layers numerically was
based on the desire not to have logical circles: with this sort of
ordering, the behavior of lower numbers does not depend on that of
higher numbers.  Any other solution would likely need to maintain that
I still think the easiest and most logical way to do this is with the
Keep_alive_together_engraver. So the options within this engraver are:

i) using the remove-layer property

     either special-casing a particular value of the remove-layer
     property, whether that be an integer value, or a symbol

ii) introducing a new property specifically to control this behaviour

     remove-last seems logical, but conflicts badly with remove-first,
     perhaps remove-finally?

iii) introducing a new property to do this and other things

What other related things could be done?

Prior to the fix for issue 3518 (support for temporary divisi staves),
the Keep_alive_together_engraver was useful only in Frenched scores,
i.e. in conjunction with \RemoveEmptyStaves - one doesn't need to keep
things alive together if they are alive all the time.

The introduction of the VerticalAxisGroup.remove-layer property created
a usage of the Keep_alive_together_engraver in an un-Frenched score,
indeed in the current state the layer with the highest score can't
include \RemoveEmptyStaves as it would then never appear. See attached
expansion of the divisi-staves regtest.

So perhaps a new property could be useful for solving this problem?

Mark Knoop

Let me know when this is ready to test for review, I haven't created any tracker because it seemed to be going back and forth and didn't see the point wasting any time testing something that seemed to (still) have fundamental disagreements or questions about it.



reply via email to

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