[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: Mark Knoop
Subject: Re: repeating bar numbers and rehearsal marks in frenched score
Date: Sat, 30 Jul 2016 12:16:16 +0100

At 11:06 on 30 Jul 2016, James Lowe wrote:
>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 property.  
>> 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?
>> Thoughts?
>> --
>> 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.

Thanks James, yes I will do some more work on this and hopefully come
up with something next week.

Mark Knoop

reply via email to

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