Status: New
Owner: ----
Labels: Type-Defect Priority-Low
New issue 1789 by pkx1...@gmail.com: \tweak is 'broken' when trying to tie
chorded notes (other than the first note in the chord)
http://code.google.com/p/lilypond/issues/detail?id=1789
Here is the main thread:
--snip--
)-----Original Message-----
)From: lilypond-devel-bounces+james.lowe=datacore....@gnu.org
)[mailto:lilypond-devel-bounces+james.lowe=datacore....@gnu.org] On )Behalf
Of Jan Warchol
)Sent: 29 July 2011 08:11
)To: David Kastrup
)Cc: lilypond-de...@gnu.org
)Subject: Re: music function semantics
)
)David,
)
)2011/7/27 David Kastrup <d...@gnu.org>:
)> Neil Puttock <n.putt...@gmail.com> writes:
)>
)>> On 26 July 2011 22:41, David Kastrup <d...@gnu.org> wrote:
)>>
)>>> So the question basically is: which of those mechanisms is actually
)>>> being in use? Are there examples for existing music functions )>>>
interpreting a postevent or a chord constituent?
)>>
)>> \tweak would be the most common usage for both of these cases:
)>>
)>> c1-\tweak #'color #red -\fermata
)>>
)>> and
)>>
)>> < \tweak #'color #red c>1
)>
)> So much for my "nobody needs that" theory. The problem I have is that
)> accepting \transpose in all the same places as \tweak does not seem )>
like a good idea.
)>
)> On the other hand, whether an error gets thrown by the parser or by )>
the expression builder might not make that much of a difference to the )>
end user than it feels like making to me.
if i understood you correctly (it's about the difference in syntax between
tweak and override?), i agree that it's quite a serious problem. ...ah, so
it is possible to modify ties in a chord separately! Do you realize that i
didn't know about it?
--snip--
From Jan W
Snippet for LSR?
I tried to write it, and do you know what? It doesn't work! Very stupid.
% if you apply this tweak to first note (c'), it works (tie gets weird).
However, when applied to second note, it doesn't.
{ < c' ~ g'-\tweak #'control-points #'((1 . -1) (3 . 0.6) (12.5 .
0.6) (14.5 . -1)) ~ > q }
--snip--
From David K
--snip--
If you take a look at the output of
\displayMusic { < c'-\tweak #'control-points #'((1 . -1) (3 . 0.6) (12.5 .
0.6) (14.5 . -1)) ~ g'-\tweak #'control-points #'((1 . -1) (3 . 0.6)
(12.5 .
0.6) (14.5 . -1)) ~ > q }
you'll see that it is not the fault of the parser. The music expression
still carries the respective information.
--snip--
From Reinhold
--snip--
Hehe. What David wanted to say: The parser correctly interprets the syntax
and properly sets the control-points for the TieEvent. So, his part of
current interest (the parser) works just fine.
However, there might be a bug later on when the graphical tie object is
actually created from the music expression. There, the control-points seem
to be handled differently for the two notes, even though both ties have the
same value assigned...
So is this a bug or something else? (I.e do we need a tracker item or
not?) and can we tie individual notes within in a chord or not?
Yes, we can tie individual notes within a chord.
<c~ e g~>4 <c e g c>
It's just the tweak that seems to be broken in your case... I would say
this is a bug, although of low priority.
_______________________________________________
bug-lilypond mailing list
bug-lilypond@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-lilypond
