2010/5/27 <lilyp...@googlecode.com>: > Comment #4 on issue 1089 by Carl.D.Sorensen: DynamicTextSpanner not > printed > http://code.google.com/p/lilypond/issues/detail?id=1089 > > There was a decision to add a bit of space to separate the cresc. > from the p. In so doing, the available space became too short to fit > both. If there were a warning, the user could make the necessary > adjustments. > > I actually don't think that 2.10.33 is correct! The crescendo is > supposed to end on the 2nd note in the measure according to the input > code. But the text spanner goes to at least the 3rd note of the > measure, and might be interpreted as going to the 4th. So, even > though 2.10.33 prints cresc., I don't think the output is consistent > with the input.
Hi Carl! I'm sorry but I don't totally agree. Actually I think 2.10.33 output is more correct than the current one. Of course we are speaking about a "theorical case": textual cresc. are not supposed to end on the note directly after the one it starts from, they are usually used to display long progressive crescendos... (for the record I had to use it as a workaround to http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/lilypond-user/2010-05/msg00171.html ). But if the input is so I think the best output is to print the textual cresc even if it overflows the note it is supposed to end on. At least I consider this better than not printing the "cresc." at all! I'm not sure I have understood the code-related reason why it is not displayed now, so I don't know if it is easily feasable to make LilyPond actually print it. So if it's not possible right now, of course the warning is a good idea (hence my previous sentence "The worst is that it does not even give a warning!"). Thanks for your attention, Xavier -- Xavier Scheuer <x.sche...@gmail.com> _______________________________________________ bug-lilypond mailing list bug-lilypond@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-lilypond
