|
I think the issue here is that David K has read the
documentation (the NR, section 2.4.1) but BB probably hasn't, and is trying to
guess what a lilypond command does from its name. This is always likely to
be problematical.
--
Phil Holmes
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Sunday, September 13, 2015 12:25
PM
Subject: Re: restrainOpenStrings
I try an explanation again:
If a user says
\set
TabStaff.minimumFret = #5
I would expect that LP obeys and just uses no
frets closer to the nut tha five. As you wrote, LP is unobedient and uses open
strings against that imperative TabStaff.minimumFret = #5 ? On the other
extreme if one sets
\set TabStaff.minimumFret = #5
in my short code
example LP is fussy and omits the d that would simply be feasible with the 3rd
fret.
Why does LP use open strings (fret 0 = nut) lower than 5th fret, but
is not flexible enough to use 3rd string for d in my example - certainly with
a warning or simple notice? (Indeed there is a warning that no string is
defined for that note d ...). I think, a positive warning in the sense " I
cannot accomplish your wish for d with minimum Fret = #5. I warn/inform you,
that I will/can do it with the 3rd fret. So please react if you do not like
that". So I can react and change something or I may agree. Beside: There is
simply no alternative to the 3rd fret in my example!
The same is true
for
\set TabStaff.restrainOpenStrings = ##t
For me the text implies,
that LP must not use open strings. In my interpretation minimumFret has
nothing to do with \set TabStaff.minimumFret = #5 straight. I would expect,
that LP will obey and fullfill my wish "no open strings". Whereas "restrain"
is not a strong categorically prohibition, but is a bit softer - maybe in the
meaning "whenever possible". (A problem with this only happens with the "last"
string, i. e. 6th string on guitar or the equivalent for other stringed
instruments.)
That soft "whenever possible" I would like for \set
TabStaff.minimumFret as well.
Again, let me point out that I
know the "contradictories" ("contradictories" in my view/logic) and therefore
I can handle it.
Thanks.
On 13.09.2015 12:44, David Kastrup wrote:
BB <address@hidden> writes:
I just pointed out - I can live with this contradictories. So simply
let me annul my question.
LilyPond's behavior and documentation is not supposed to be
contradictory. So please point out any actual contradictions in the
documentation or LilyPond's behavior so that they may be fixed.
_______________________________________________
lilypond-user
mailing
list
address@hidden
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
|