lilypond-devel
[Top][All Lists]

Re: R\fermata: How to build a markup in C++?

 From: Malte Meyn Subject: Re: R\fermata: How to build a markup in C++? Date: Sat, 20 Apr 2019 16:55:39 +0200 User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:60.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/60.6.1

```

Am 19.04.19 um 19:50 schrieb Dan Eble:
```
```On Apr 16, 2019, at 06:58, Malte Meyn <address@hidden> wrote:
```
```
In all these cases \fermata behaves the same as \fermataMarkup, because both
simply create a MultiMeasureRestText. It’s placed on the first measure of
expanded MMRs
```
```

Is that the most reasonable result or should it be treated as a known issue?
Wouldn’t it be more logical for an expanded R1*3\fermata to be engraved like R1
R1 R1\fermata?
```
```
I don’t think that it would be more logical; two thoughts on that:

```
1. You probably wouldn’t use fermatas on compressed multi-measure rests but instead spell them out because otherwise the player would not know which measures are affected:
```%%%%%%%% BEGIN %%%%%%%%
{
\compressFullBarRests

R1*3\fermata    % IMO unlikely
R1*2 R1\fermata % clearer
R1\fermata R1*2 % clearer

% and a player could even interpret it as
R1\fermata R\fermata R\fermata
}
%%%%%%%%% END %%%%%%%%%
```
So if you wouldn’t write R1*3\fermata with compressed rests, why would you with expanded ones? → The default placement is irrelevant.
```
```
2. Texts like “Allegro” or “ritardando” or “change to piccolo” on compressed multi-measure should be placed on the first measure if expanded:
```%%%%%%%% BEGIN %%%%%%%%
{
R1*3-"ritardando"

\compressFullBarRests
R1*3-"ritardando"
}
%%%%%%%%% END %%%%%%%%%
```
I think that it would be good to have consistent behaviour of scripts (like \fermata) and text scripts (like -"ritardando"). → The default placement of MultiMeasureRestScripts should be the same as for MultiMeasureRestTexts as it currently is.
```

```