2018-03-12 20:12 GMT+01:00 Arle Lommel <arle.lom...@gmail.com>:
> % Cannot tweak both ties in a double tie.
> % Lilypond 2.18.2 simply ignores the second one.
> % This example has a deliberately bad example in
> % the second \shape command to make it obvious where it
> % is working or not, but *no* values change
> % the output from the system. The second \shape command
> % is completely ignored.
> %
> % There is some additional weirdness I will follow up with,
> % where, if you have a string of ties and you insert a \break
> % in the middle, it switches to ignoring the first one
> % and honoring the second one in a chord.
>
> \version "2.18.2"
> \relative c'' {
> \tieUp
> <cis!-\shape #'((0.0 . 2.0) (0.0 . 2.0) (0.0 . 2.0) (0.0 . 2.0))~
> e-\shape #'((0.0 . 5.0) (0.0 . 0.0) (0.0 . 0.0) (0.0 . 2.0))~>1 |
> <cis! e>1 |
> }
The problem here is TieColumn being involved.
TieColumn sets control-points for the containing ties and the values
provided by \shape will be ignored more or less arbitrary.
To prevent TieColumn doing so and have the shape-values accepted you
need to set positioning-done #t at appropriate place _and_ set the
direction of each containing tie. Which may be done by \tieUp for all
or using direction-modifiers. _And_ apply \shape to all individual
in-chord ties.
\relative c'' {
<
cis!
-\shape #'((0 . 0.5) (0 . -2) (0 . 1) (0 . 0))
^~
e
-\shape #'((-2 . 0) (0 . 10) (0 . 10) (2 . 0))
^~
>1 |
\once \override TieColumn.positioning-done = ##t
<cis! e>1 |
}
\relative c'' {
\tieUp
<
cis!
-\shape #'(((0 . 0.5) (0 . -2) (0 . 1) (0 . 0))
((0 . 0.5) (0 . -2) (0 . 1) (0 . 0)))
~
e
-\shape #'(((-2 . 0) (0 . 10) (0 . 10) (2 . 0))
((-2 . 0) (0 . 2) (0 . 2) (2 . 0)))
~
>1 |
\break
\once \override TieColumn.positioning-done = ##t
<cis! e>1 |
}
Afair, it's a known limitation of \shape.
So I tend to go for a documentation-issue here.
Other opinions?
Cheers,
Harm
_______________________________________________
bug-lilypond mailing list
bug-lilypond@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-lilypond
